another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

[Starter]

well according to the news bombings in pakistan and iraq killed over 50 people today - but i guess these don't count - the euros only care about disarming Americans. Kind of interesting I would say!!
That's an interesting point. In this and similar threads, there is a huge amount of outrage and finger pointing about gun violence in the US. I don't recall any threads about the mass bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan and other places. Most of those bombings were aimed specifically at civilian targets. The atrocities committed in sub Saharan Africa boggle the mind. The death toll from most has been substantially greater than from any one gun incident here. It's true that they were not the acts of a single deranged person, but rather by organized political/religious groups. To me, that makes them even worse. Still, the loss of life has been dramatically greater than from any gun violence in the US. Where is the righteous outrage about all that? It makes one wonder why that is.

The mass gun deaths here represent a small fraction of total deaths. More people, children included, die in any given week on the US highways than died at that school. Some as a result of true accidents, but many because of the criminal behavior of others. Any outrage? ...... (silence) Guess not. Perhaps we should all try and get a sense of perspective about what the world is really like instead of what we would like it to be.

[SGWilko]

More people, children included, die in any given week on the US highways

OK. But were any of those deaths pre-meditated?

There are many organisations who dedicate time and money to making roads safer - because they see the need to do something about it.

[donKey jote]

Conclusion - there's a lot of nuts over there, and the combination of nut + gun(s) = not good.

Are we too busy being careful not to 'upset' everyone by allowing these 'nuts' more freedom in case we oppress their civil liberties, human rights etc?

I apologise for using the derogatory term. Pretty insensitive and ignorant of me. :( :mark:

[Dave B]

The guy was apparently had mental issues and part of the answer is surely not so easy access to guns for people with mental issues.
The mother also appeared to have mental issues.
Well quite. Mental illness isn't confined to the USA (although one might question whether a society which demands payment for all but emergency healthcare is well equipped to deal with it), but no other industrialised country has the rate of gun crime that they do.

[Roamy]

The guy apparently had mental issues and part of the answer is surely not so easy access to guns for people with such mental issues.
The mother also appeared to have mental issues.

Yes the Mother should have had a secure gun safe knowing her child was whack. Now this would be a good recommendation instead of gun laws. People with mentally challenged should be counseled indepth about guns and proper handling and control.

[SGWilko]

Yes the Mother should have had a secure gun safe knowing her child was whack. Now this would be a good recommendation instead of gun laws. People with mentally challenged should be counseled indepth about guns and proper handling and control.

Perhaps, for their own safety, they should be refused a license....

[Roamy]

People dying from accidents in modes of transport and children having their lives deliberately turned off by a nutter with an automatic weapon is not even remotely comparable. The fact is cars are necessary tools for daily life in a modern world and guns are not. Nobody needs to have automatic weapons in their homes for protection. If you live in a society where you are either that paranoid or there genuinely is a need for such protection then your country is in a complete mess. In this thread we have had people smugly suggesting they live in a free society, yet then go on to say they need to protect themselves against, intruders, rapists, murderers, cops, and the bit that made me laugh, the government! I can appreciate having guns is all you people know, but from us looking in it looks like a total shambles.

Right - coming from a guy who's government fried 9 million people - you are just the guy I want to listen to.

[Roamy]

Perhaps, for their own safety, they should be refused a license....

I would probably not have a problem with this but of course the Mother would be judged sane - so now back to the gun safe!

[SGWilko]

Right - coming from a guy who's government fried 9 million people - you are just the guy I want to listen to.

Are you the whole ticket?

[SGWilko]

I would probably not have a problem with this but of course the Mother would be judged sane - so now back to the gun safe!

She was hoarding stuff (including guns) for the end of the world. Seriously, there is a loose wire there somewhere, maybe she watched T2 once too often?

[Dave B]

Right - coming from a guy who's government fried 9 million people - you are just the guy I want to listen to.
I've run it through Google Translate but I'm still none the wiser. What's the point you're trying to make?

[BDunnell]

Right - coming from a guy who's government fried 9 million people - you are just the guy I want to listen to.

Er, pardon? There are quite a lot of people here waiting for your explanation with great anticipation.

[Starter]

She was hoarding stuff (including guns) for the end of the world. Seriously, there is a loose wire there somewhere, maybe she watched T2 once too often?
Where in the world did you get that?

[SGWilko]

Er, pardon? There are quite a lot of people here waiting for your explanation with great anticipation.

Something tells me we ought not hold our collective breath........

[Starter]

OK. But were any of those deaths pre-meditated?
It makes a difference? Dead is just dead.

[gloomyDAY]

President talking last night near Sandy Hook, so in case any of our European friend's missed it, here it is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBCYgaS83vs

[BDunnell]

That's an interesting point. In this and similar threads, there is a huge amount of outrage and finger pointing about gun violence in the US. I don't recall any threads about the mass bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan and other places.

We can start a thread about the sheer uselessness of the US and Allied efforts in bringing peace and stability to two of those countries if you like — one in which some of your countrymen (perhaps even yourself) would no doubt start bleating about the lack of gratitude being shown towards the US for its fight against terrorism.

I also find it sad that you would suggest that killings in the US are somehow less surprising, and thus no more worthy of comment, than acts of violence in the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan.



The mass gun deaths here represent a small fraction of total deaths. More people, children included, die in any given week on the US highways than died at that school. Some as a result of true accidents, but many because of the criminal behavior of others. Any outrage? ...... (silence) Guess not. Perhaps we should all try and get a sense of perspective about what the world is really like instead of what we would like it to be.

A meaningless, empty paragraph and a meaningless, empty argument. How, in moral terms, do you equate everyday accidents with someone entering a school and shooting children dead?

Your notion of what the world is 'really like' strikes me as a paranoid, insecure one in which these supposed 'realities' lead to security measures of absurdly inflated proportions.

[BDunnell]

It makes a difference? Dead is just dead.

Not in the eyes of the law it isn't, hence differing sentences for murder and manslaughter, to cite one example.

[SGWilko]

It makes a difference? Dead is just dead.

Yes, it does make a difference. To blithely say that we shouldn't read too much into these killings, because more kids die on the roads is to miss the point by a light year.

[Starter]

Er, pardon? There are quite a lot of people here waiting for your explanation with great anticipation.
I don't wish to put words in his mouth, but I believe it was in reply to this quote from henners88 in post #262: ".....that paranoid or there genuinely is a need for such protection then your country.....".

[BDunnell]

See excellent point why we MUST stay armed. You Euros blame us for everything wrong with the world. We have to buy allies in the middle east and asia to avert a nuclear war which is on the horizon thanks you Euros not policing your own neighbors.

Regarding this thread: If you can stand there and shoot your Mother in the face then gun control is far from the answer. You guys sit on your butts allowing Iran to go nuclear and then you will be crying to the world when you realize you could be in the path. I know your answer is to just go Muslim which you are and then you can band together with the rest of our enemies. Well the end game is going to be a hell of a light show so for that no guns will be necessary.

Wow, what an inarticulate rant. Posts like this make you appear slightly unhinged.

I for one don't blame the US for everything wrong with the world. Enough of your national victim complex. I certainly blame your governments, of both colours, for exacerbating some of the world's problems.

[Starter]

Yes, it does make a difference. To blithely say that we should'nt read too much into these killings, because more kids die on the roads is to miss the point by a light year.
No, the real point is people dying because of the action of others. You get much more (pardon the pun) bang for the buck by addressing highway fatalities.

[BDunnell]

That's the biggest issue - sound mind.

That's one way of putting it, but he wouldn't have done such damage without a firearm.

[BDunnell]

Afraid? Not at all. The government is afraid of us. And that is how it should be.

You try and talk the talk, but you sadden rather than scare.

[BDunnell]

Let's try and be a little less personally insulting, shall we?

Goodness, if ioan's comment about paranoia counts as a personal insult, I'd suggest you're a little over-sensitive.

[SGWilko]

That's one way of putting it, but he wouldn't have done such damage without a firearm.

I agree - but the monumental task of disarming the American public may cause more trouble than it hopes to solve.

I don't profess to know the answer, but I think (and this thread is testament) there is a deep seated attitude toward firearms in the States that you'd be hard pressed to change.

[SGWilko]

No, the real point is people dying because of the action of others. You get much more (pardon the pun) bang for the buck by addressing highway fatalities.

And you don't think that is being addressed already?

[BDunnell]

You may think you have freedom but every day I hear reports of how such basic freedoms of Speech, Thought and Self-Determination are virtually non-existent.

'Every day'? Really? Honestly? From whom, or which media outlets, do these reports come?

(Sorry, in asking you to respond, to take you away from the vital job you clearly have of chronicling the lack of freedom in European nations based on detailed personal reports from reliable sources as opposed, naturally, to bits at which you've taken a vague glance on right-wing nut-job websites.)

[Starter]

I for one don't blame the US for everything wrong with the world. Enough of your national victim complex. I certainly blame your governments, of both colours, for exacerbating some of the world's problems.
Actually, we can blame your country for all of the death and destruction in the middle east because if not for Germany the country of Israel would not exist, nor would there ever have been a need for it. It's also true that Germany has paid the price for that and it's now done. But that's off topic for sure and I apologize to everyone for taking it there.

[Dave B]

Afraid? Not at all. The government is afraid of us. And that is how it should be.
I'd missed that gem.

Your government could wipe you out in a heartbeat if it so wished. They're not in the slightest bit scared of you.

Ask yourself this: if you decided to stage an uprising in the vein of Tunisia or Egypt, do you honestly think you could take down the government? Seriously?

[BDunnell]

No, the real point is people dying because of the action of others. You get much more (pardon the pun) bang for the buck by addressing highway fatalities.

So a road accident (stress on the latter word) that kills 20 kids ought not to cause anyone any more concern or moral outrage than a mentally ill man shooting 20 kids dead in their school? Interesting moral code by which you live.

[Starter]

And you don't think that is being addressed already?
Not adequately.

[BDunnell]

Actually, we can blame your country for all of the death and destruction in the middle east because if not for Germany the country of Israel would not exist, nor would there ever have been a need for it. But that's off topic for sure and I apologize to everyone for taking it there.

I am not German. And, as someone who no doubt believes in the concept of personal responsibility, it is quite incredible for you to blame anyone other than those authorising and carrying out the acts of violence themselves in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

[Starter]

I agree - but the monumental task of disarming the American public may cause more trouble than it hopes to solve.

I don't profess to know the answer, but I think (and this thread is testament) there is a deep seated attitude toward firearms in the States that you'd be hard pressed to change.
Thank you for seeing the truth. Too many people have unrealistic expectations as to what parts of reality it is possible to change. It matters little what you attitude toward guns may be, the reality is that they are ingrained in our society and exist here in larger numbers than can possibly be taken away. Should the government try and seize them, then there will for sure be another civil war here. I am not saying that because I am a gun owner (which I am), but because it is the truth of the matter.

[SGWilko]

Thank you for seeing the truth. Too many people have unrealistic expectations as to what parts of reality it is possible to change. It matters little what you attitude toward guns may be, the reality is that they are ingrained in our society and exist here in larger numbers than can possibly be taken away. Should the government try and seize them, then there will for sure be another civil war here. I am not saying that because I am a gun owner (which I am), but because it is the truth of the matter.

And, as an outsider, I find this very concerning.

[BDunnell]

Thank you for seeing the truth. Too many people have unrealistic expectations as to what parts of reality it is possible to change. It matters little what you attitude toward guns may be, the reality is that they are ingrained in our society and exist here in larger numbers than can possibly be taken away.

Guns should never be 'ingrained' in any society. Guns are in no sense a force for good, except perhaps in terms of some sporting use.

[donKey jote]

I know! An increase of gun-tax :idea:

ok maybe not :p :andrea:

[SGWilko]

I know! An increase of gun-tax :idea:

ok maybe not :p :andrea:

You'd wipe out the national debt overnight.......... :p

[Starter]

So a road accident (stress on the latter word) that kills 20 kids ought not to cause anyone any more concern or moral outrage than a mentally ill man shooting 20 kids dead in their school? Interesting moral code by which you live.
You certainly do like to claim meanings not in evidence and quotes out of context, don't you? It basically makes all of your posts not worth reading as they are nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from points which you apparently have no substantive answer to..

[donKey jote]

You'd wipe out the national debt overnight.......... http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

or cause another credit crunch :(

[Starter]

Guns should never be 'ingrained' in any society.
Please tell us what that has to do with reality?

[BDunnell]

You certainly do like to claim meanings not in evidence and quotes out of context, don't you? It basically makes all of your posts not worth reading as they are nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from points which you apparently have no substantive answer to..

No, my question was based entirely on the content of your post. You seemed not to understand why anyone would find a shooting of schoolchildren more worthy of comment than, say, a road accident that resulted in the same number of casualties. Several of your posts have sought to downplay the significance of what happened last week by making comparisons with, for example, deaths in other countries, or other events causing comparable death tolls. I would question this. Now do you see why my comment towards you was relevant?

As for my lack of a substantive answer — rubbish. I would have thought my personal view as to the answer was immediately obvious: end the gun culture.

[BDunnell]

Please tell us what that has to do with reality?

It's the reality in most countries that guns are not 'ingrained' in society. This is what it has to do with 'reality'.

[ChristianArp]

Thank you for seeing the truth. Too many people have unrealistic expectations as to what parts of reality it is possible to change. It matters little what you attitude toward guns may be, the reality is that they are ingrained in our society and exist here in larger numbers than can possibly be taken away. Should the government try and seize them, then there will for sure be another civil war here. I am not saying that because I am a gun owner (which I am), but because it is the truth of the matter.

But might it perhaps be possible to 'downgrade' the sort of guns owned by members of the general public?
Surely it should never be necessary to have anything more than a handgun for the purpose of home protection, and yet I recently came across something on the telly:
An episode of Sons of Guns (TV-show, I know, but hardly a farfetched fantasy), a man walks in with a revolver and asks for repairs to it, as he had just acquired it from somewhere, cant remember the story of it.. Well, anyway, he is asked what he needs it for, 'Just home protection', and the next thing you hear: 'Have you thought of a shotgun?'. So we now move from a handgun to a shotgun to protect our home? Why does that sound like more of a business decision than a security assessment?
I understand that guns are most likely part of US society, so the only possibility must be reduction as opposed to complete removal.

[BDunnell]

But might it perhaps be possible to 'downgrade' the sort of guns owned by members of the general public?

Some of the gun owners on here I wouldn't trust with a knitting needle, so the question of competency is a relevant one.

[ChristianArp]

Some of the gun owners on here I wouldn't trust with a knitting needle, so the question of competency is a relevant one.

I must profess to not knowing anyone on here well enough to make that assessment, but I totally see your point.
And looking at the sort of small-army-arsenals that some recent nutters have been able to legally procure is where my proposal comes from. Assault rifle ammunition pieces running into the thousands should not be allowed for any private person in my opinion, and yet it seems perfectly reasonable in areas of the States?

[Starter]

But might it perhaps be possible to 'downgrade' the sort of guns owned by members of the general public?
Possible to do more of that. It would require a long period of time to achieve, but possible.

Surely it should never be necessary to have anything more than a handgun for the purpose of home protection, and yet I recently came across something on the telly:
An episode of Sons of Guns (TV-show, I know, but hardly a farfetched fantasy), a man walks in with a revolver and asks for repairs to it, as he had just acquired it from somewhere, cant remember the story of it.. Well, anyway, he is asked what he needs it for, 'Just home protection', and the next thing you hear: 'Have you thought of a shotgun?'. So we now move from a handgun to a shotgun to protect our home? Why does that sound like more of a business decision than a security assessment?
From a practical point of view, it's a very reasonable recommendation. A shot gun loaded with 00 buckshot is a very effective close range weapon. Easier to hit an intruder in a stressful situation or in the dark - though the collateral damage to furniture and walls will be greater. Get a pump action one. In many cases just the sound of chambering a round will get that nasty person headed the other way.

[Starter]

I must profess to not knowing anyone on here well enough to make that assessment, but I totally see your point.
And looking at the sort of small-army-arsenals that some recent nutters have been able to legally procure is where my proposal comes from. Assault rifle ammunition pieces running into the thousands should not be allowed for any private person in my opinion, and yet it seems perfectly reasonable in areas of the States?
A common misconception is that assault weapons are legal here. They are not. Manufacturers make models which resemble them for marketing purposes, but they are assault weapons in appearance only.

[ChristianArp]

From a practical point of view, it's a very reasonable recommendation. A shot gun loaded with 00 buckshot is a very effective close range weapon. Easier to hit an intruder in a stressful situation or in the dark - though the collateral damage to furniture and walls will be greater. Get a pump action one. In many cases just the sound of chambering a round will get that nasty person headed the other way.

I see your point, but then by your reasoning an assault rifle makes even more sense - just load up a full magazine and then unload it on the intruder?
Whichever way you look at it, a handgun will still be plenty to injure anyone enough that their primal instincts will have them looking very fast for a way out of your house? With the added benefits that it slows down what seems to be an arms race contested by completely regular people..

[SGWilko]

And here is me with the old fashioned deadlock on the front door, burglar alarm with activated zones and a phone by my bed lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Overpriced crap, please!

[schmenke]

And here is me with the old fashioned deadlock on the front door, burglar alarm with activated zones and a phone by my bed lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a good point henners. Around here the risk of home invasion is minimal to begin with, and further minimized with proper security measures as to make gun ownership for the purpose of protection effectively redundant. I would go so far as to argue that the risk of injury with merely having a gun in my home is far greater than the risk of home invasion to begin with :mark: .

[Starter]

I see your point, but then by your reasoning an assault rifle makes even more sense - just load up a full magazine and then unload it on the intruder?
Whichever way you look at it, a handgun will still be plenty to injure anyone enough that their primal instincts will have them looking very fast for a way out of your house? With the added benefits that it slows down what seems to be an arms race contested by completely regular people..
Very true. But practice regularly so that you can hit what you aim at.

[Starter]

And here is me with the old fashioned deadlock on the front door, burglar alarm with activated zones and a phone by my bed lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am sure that you will be able to hold the criminal at bay with a rousing chat, while waiting for the police to respond from the alarm or phone call. ;)

[race aficionado]

Ban bullets.

[ChristianArp]

Very true. But practice regularly so that you can hit what you aim at.

Exactly what I'm trying to say: if you just spend a bit of effort, the need for more than a handgun should never exist for purposes that - to my mind, it must be said - should never require a firearm, yet it is wrongly accepted to keep high power guns 'just in case'.
It is reality, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a broken reality.

I'll go to bed, safe in the knowledge that I've got an easy way out of the house should something happen (why confront the baddie?), knowing that everything is locked - and I live three houses from the regional headquarters of a massive biker-gang that is in the middle of a turf war..

[Valve Bounce]

This was a truly shocking event. There should be tighter gun regulations in the USA, for sure. However, the gun didn't go off by itself - what is more important is that it is found out why this man did what he did, and how this can be stopped in future. If it wasn't a gun, he could've used something else (albeit probably to a lesser degree).

The focus should be on getting to the root of the problem, not just banning guns. The guns were the tool used, the cause was the mind of the perpetrator.

Video games have nothing to do with this either. Anybody of sane rationality knows the vast difference between reality and a computer game.

This is an interesting concept, when one considers that the guy who shot the children reportedly spent many, many hours playing violent video games, and had access to his mothers firearms. I doubt many here would argue that this guy was "of sane rationality"

But seeing there are already 200 plus million firearms in the United States of America, I cannot see how any gun control could possibly be activated.

[Valve Bounce]

I am sure that you will be able to hold the criminal at bay with a rousing chat, while waiting for the police to respond from the alarm or phone call. ;)

Actually, my nephew was a victim of a home invasion three days ago. 4 guys came to his apartment,and when he opened the door they demanded that he come outside. My nephew said"Like NO! and they kicked the screen door down, he ran away from them while they were punching his head, tore his shirt, but he finally made it to his bedroom and locked the door and called the cops.

Now if these 4 guys had guns, even if my nephew was armed, he would have been killed.

[Knock-on]

I have a German built assault weapon that is incredibly effective at detering murders and rapists to such an extent that most nights I forget to lock my door. As an added bonus, it also keeps my feet warm by lying on them. :D

I researched AnthonyVop's 'statistics' on the UK crime rates and compared them to America. America has done very well in the last few years at reducing the Murder rate in the US. It has dropped from 8.1 per 100k in 1995 to a mere 4.8 in 2010. That is really good news but if I was a US citizen, I would want to see it reduce even more. It may take a long time to get down to the UK rate of 1.2 but it's worth doing. You will never cut it out completely and it's going to be tough but isn't it worth doing?

Please guys, get over the constitution a bit here. Removing the right to bear arms will not make your Government suddenly turn into a Dictatorship that removes all your freedom rights. Your Government will always do what the Lobby groups tell them. Nothing will change that.

[Rollo]

Perhaps we should all try and get a sense of perspective about what the world is really like instead of what we would like it to be.

Does law have a hand in shaping and guiding a culture? If not, then why is it that Australia happened to have more deaths due to accidental electrocution than by people using guns? How is it that Australia happens to have less deaths in a year than the United States has on any given day?


Very true. But practice regularly so that you can hit what you aim at.

This goes for practically everything, including enacting law to "insure domestic Tranquility".

[BDunnell]

I am sure that you will be able to hold the criminal at bay with a rousing chat, while waiting for the police to respond from the alarm or phone call. ;)

I don't think he worries that much about it, to be honest. Most non-Americans don't seem to.

[BDunnell]

I'll go to bed, safe in the knowledge that I've got an easy way out of the house should something happen (why confront the baddie?)

Therein perhaps lies a point about those who advocate the possession of guns — that they may dress it up in issues relating to the constitution, keeping the government at bay and so forth, but really, possibly subconsciously, they like the idea of some day confronting someone with their gun. There is certainly a certain glee attached to gun ownership that seems to go beyond theoretical, constitutional notions.

[BDunnell]

I have a German built assault weapon that is incredibly effective at detering murders and rapists to such an extent that most nights I forget to lock my door. As an added bonus, it also keeps my feet warm by lying on them. :D

You see, to me the presence of a dog would almost be more of a deterrent than would the ownership of a firearm.

[Rollo]

There is certainly a certain glee attached to gun ownership that seems to go beyond theoretical, constitutional notions.

Is .223 the Best Home Defense Caliber? - Guns & Ammo (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/)
There are a number of factors behind this—increased exposure to the weapon system via media, fears of terrorism and the realization of just how fun the darn things are to shoot.
- Guns & Ammo magazine, 10th Feb 2012

Same caliber as the one used to destroy 20 children... so much "fun".

[gloomyDAY]

I've been on some firearms forums, and some keep citing the Australian gun buyback program. This video keeps getting plastered over and over again about how defenseless Australian's became once they no longer had access to firearms, and how there was a spike in home invasion robberies. I'm not sure if it's smart to cite Australia because homicides and suicides plummeted after the gun buyback scheme. Any Ozzy's here who can shed a bit more light on this issue?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPGBXqaF2dg

[Rollo]

I've been on some firearms forums, and some keep citing the Australian gun buyback program. This video keeps getting plastered over and over again about how defenseless Australian's became once they no longer had access to firearms, and how there was a spike in home invasion robberies. I'm not sure if it's smart to cite Australia because homicides and suicides plummeted after the gun buyback scheme. Any Ozzy's here who can shed a bit more light on this issue?


The video dates from 1997 and it doesn't surprise me that this would be trotted out now, a video clip which is 15 years old has almost no relevance now.

"Gun laws that have backfired" - 4:36
Bollocks they have.

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html)
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Gun deaths in rapid decline since buyback - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html)
The new report, titled Australia's 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides and a Decade without Mass Shootings, finds that in the 18 years before the gun buyback there were an average of 492 firearm suicides a year.
After the introduction of the buyback scheme, that figure dropped to 247 in the seven years for which reliable figures are available.

Perhaps most telling is the statistic from 2011:
Homicide and related offences:
Homicide - with firearms: 30
(source) - 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012

[gloomyDAY]

Sadly, I feel as if it's after September 11th again, and fear is going to lead Americans into stupid decisions (unPATRIOTic Act). For example, Rick Perry (Governor of Texas) has stated that he wants Texas to be ready for a gun-wielding attack in schools. There's discussion of making the "guardian plan" a statewide law.

Texas school where teachers carry guns prepared to protect students | Crime and Safety |... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486104/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html)



Perhaps most telling is the statistic from 2011:
Homicide and related offences:
Homicide - with firearms: 30
(source) - 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012Thanks. I thought this video was full of crap!

[BDunnell]

For example, Rick Perry (Governor of Texas) has stated that he wants Texas to be ready for a gun-wielding attack in schools.

That such a statement can even be made speaks volumes. In most other countries, it would be like saying schools should be ready for an airliner crashing into them. It could happen, but to make specific preparations would be laughable.

[Rollo]

Thanks. I thought this video was full of crap!

I don't know about "full of crap" but it isn't very appropriate now. I'm sure that those people had very real sentiments fifteen years ago. Heck even the splash screen shows a VT Commodore as the police car; they stopped production in 2000 which was four; soon to be five models ago.

[gloomyDAY]

I don't know about "full of crap" but it isn't very appropriate now. I'm sure that those people had very real sentiments fifteen years ago. Heck even the splash screen shows a VT Commodore as the police car; they stopped production in 2000 which was four; soon to be five models ago.Yeah, I see what you're saying. Those people were directly affected by the buyback scheme. I just can't see how that's relevant to the school shooting in Shady Hook. Furthermore, as you alluded to earlier, the results of getting rid of those firearms was a net positive for a everyone's quality of life in Australia.

[nigelred5]

A common misconception is that assault weapons are legal here. They are not. Manufacturers make models which resemble them for marketing purposes, but they are assault weapons in appearance only.

That's not entirely accurate. It is perfectly legal for properly licensed private citizens to own fully automatic weapons in several states. I have such a license and have owned the military versions of the AR15. I own the semi automatic civilian versions you described and there are substantial differences. i reality, there is little difference between them and many hunting rifles capable or far more damge.

I"ll fully admit, other than the sheer enjoyment we get from shooting them, there is little rational need for a fully automatic weapon and I no longer own any fully automatic weapons because even I can't justify owning one with even the worst case scenarios. That is not however what the shooter was using.


The shootings Friday are an unfathomable tragedy, as a parent, a former teacher and as a human being, but I still fully defend the rights given to me by the founders of this country and I defend that as vehemently as I defend my beliefs in the holy bible. The key issue with every one of these mass shootings has been inadequately treated mental illness. THAT iswhat is not being adequately addressed, and yet we will end up with ineffective hap-hazzard knee-jerk legislation that takes the right to defend oneself against people like this before the f#&#ed-up leaders of this country spends a second of time or a dime of public money improving the access to mental health care for the vast majority of our country.

[nigelred5]

And here is me with the old fashioned deadlock on the front door, burglar alarm with activated zones and a phone by my bed lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of us have far more faith in our own ability to protect ourselves than the police department on the other end of that line. Obviously you have never been the victim of a violent home invasion.

[race aficionado]

I found this article very telling and serious.
It's serious stuff.

'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': When Parents Are Afraid of Their Children
http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/17/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-when-parents-are-afraid-of-their-children

[Valve Bounce]

Gun deaths in rapid decline since buyback - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html)
The new report, titled Australia's 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides and a Decade without Mass Shootings, finds that in the 18 years before the gun buyback there were an average of 492 firearm suicides a year.
After the introduction of the buyback scheme, that figure dropped to 247 in the seven years for which reliable figures are available.

Perhaps most telling is the statistic from 2011:
Homicide and related offences:
Homicide - with firearms: 30
(source) - 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012

Actually, the current stats are a bit misleading Rollo, because much of the murders since 1996 resulted from the drug wars and many of them were caused by gangsters killing each other(read Carl Williams vs Morans), gangsters killing police (Walsh St murder) by Victor Pierce, and also Benji Veniamin who was a henchman of Carl Williams who was killed by Mick Gatto. I do remember one guy recently who was off his nutter about 3 years ago,who chased two associates into a park off Lygon St and killed them. Most of the shootings these days (and they are a regular occurrence), are bikies/drugs related. But we don't have these machine gun random killings here since 1996. If you guys google the above namesand/or UNDERBELLY, it makes for a very interesting read.

[Rollo]

Actually, the current stats are a bit misleading Rollo, because much of the murders since 1996 resulted from the drug wars and many of them were caused by gangsters killing each other

That would suggest that the rest of society is even safer because gangsters and organised crime tends to add to the rates of homicide.


Some of us have far more faith in our own ability to protect ourselves than the police department on the other end of that line. Obviously you have never been the victim of a violent home invasion.

Do you have an incompetent police department or is society so violent, that you've crossed the line that they literally can not do their job anymore?

That rather tells the story then doesn't it? If one has never been the victim of a violent home invasion, then that says that they society is safer based on the very small scope of evidence.
I would prefer to live in Mr Henners88's town than yours.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If you are ignorant of the facts why do you insist on commenting?

One more time.

What you call "Assault" weapons are just mean looking guns and Automatic rifles are heavily regulated, cost 1000's of dollars and require a F.B.I. background Check along with permission from the local constabulary.


OK Nobody is walking down to the local gun shop and walking out with a machine gun. Got it?

Gun shows?

[Valve Bounce]

Gun shows?

I am astonished how anthonyvop has no idea what is happening at the gun shows, where sellers can be unlicenced and can sell to anyone without any permit. This is the loophole that some Democrat senators are trying to block. I don't blame anthony, I first found out about it in the Baldacci books.

[gloomyDAY]

Gun shows?Bingo! You don't even need to show identification, and it's cash only.

[SGWilko]

I am sure that you will be able to hold the criminal at bay with a rousing chat, while waiting for the police to respond from the alarm or phone call. ;)

Over here I doubt said criminal would carry a gun, but hey ho.

[BDunnell]

Some of us have far more faith in our own ability to protect ourselves than the police department on the other end of that line. Obviously you have never been the victim of a violent home invasion.

No, and the thought has never crossed my mind that one might occur, because I don't live in a constant state of fear.

[BDunnell]

Over here I doubt said criminal would carry a gun, but hey ho.

You never know. anthonyvop might be on another of his legendary European sojourns.

[BDunnell]

Some things just aren't risking your life for and some things just aren't worth getting paranoid about.

Exactly.

[SGWilko]

You never know. anthonyvop might be on another of his legendary European sojourns.

I'll keep an eye out, if it's him I'll set the wife on him - then he'll be sorry! ;)

[BDunnell]

I'll keep an eye out, if it's him I'll set the wife on him - then he'll be sorry! ;)

Even that will be no defence against FREEDOM.

[SGWilko]

Even that will be no defence against FREEDOM.

Wanna bet, she'd talk him to death........

But I get your point.

[Hawkmoon]

Regarding this thread: If you can stand there and shoot your Mother in the face then gun control is far from the answer.

You just don't get it. If that whack job had been in Australia then we wouldn't be having this conversation because he wouldn't have had easy access to a small cache of guns and wouldn't have been able to easily kill those kids. Our gun control laws work because they have prevented our society from being flooded with guns. Gun control does work if the will is there. Unfortunately, the will of the US is sadly lacking.

It's called harm minimisation. You aren't going to be able to stop every nutcase from going on a rampage but you can limit the damage they can do by restricting access to the tool, ie. the gun, that makes their rampages all the more deadly. How many of those kids would still be alive if the killer could use nothing more than a melee weapon? I'm going to guess almost all of them.

[SGWilko]

I think (one of) the hurdles they will face in the States in respect of tighter gun control is the mentality that 'he's got a bigger gun than me'.

As for the mother of the killer in this instance - suvivalists really should be the last people to be given access to guns, because rationality and clear thought during a massive catastrophe goes out the window.

[Knock-on]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/196114_553601514669911_2122253703_n.jpg

[SGWilko]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/196114_553601514669911_2122253703_n.jpg

There's nothing like getting your priorities right, is there?

[Bagwan]

So , we have a country where , in most places , guns are not allowed into schools .
Then , we get a shooting in a school . And , then another .
And , the decision in some places , is to require guns in the school ?

So , which is the right way to go ?
Perhaps , mental health counsellors armed with semi-autos .

By the way , I didn't lock my doors last night .
The only time I have , since I moved here in 1990 , has been when I am not here .

Ironically , the only time I have had any sort of home invasion was once , when a member of the local constabulary came in through my residential door , and through into my store , where he left a note on one of his cards on the store counter , informing us that the store was not secure .

Actually , I guess that's not totally true , as , last year , not long before Christmas , a deer came storming in the front door , and out the front window one evening .
I guess a gun might have helped in that case , had I been there .

[Starter]

Actually , I guess that's not totally true , as , last year , not long before Christmas , a deer came storming in the front door , and out the front window one evening .
I guess a gun might have helped in that case , had I been there .
Not worth it. You would have been fined a couple of bucks for discharging a firearm within city limits.

[schmenke]

Sadly, I feel as if it's after September 11th again, and fear is going to lead Americans into stupid decisions (unPATRIOTic Act). For example, Rick Perry (Governor of Texas) has stated that he wants Texas to be ready for a gun-wielding attack in schools. There's discussion of making the "guardian plan" a statewide law.

Texas school where teachers carry guns prepared to protect students | Crime and Safety |... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486104/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html)

...

Good Lord, that is a depressing indication of a degenerating society :s

[race aficionado]

To each, his own . . .

Less lethal but no less alarming, China deals with school attacks - The Maddow Blog (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/17/15976531-less-lethal-but-no-less-alarming-china-deals-with-school-attacks?lite)

[anthonyvop]

Pretty much sums up the whole gun control debate

Do guns kill people? Pistol, shotgun, assault rifle put to the test - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7zQ83fhKQ0M&fb_source=message)

[Bagwan]

Not worth it. You would have been fined a couple of bucks for discharging a firearm within city limits.

It was only one buck , as far as I know .

And , I doubt I would have been fined , as , in this case , it would easily have been seen as self-defense .
Those antlers were sharp . I have witnesses .

And , I live in a village , not a city .

There are a fair few guns around here .
Vests are orange and necks are red .
Almost all are long guns , and many involve pretty hefty stopping power , if you needed defense , but are meant for deer , duck , bear , moose , goose , or other furry and feathery foes .
Incidentally , there are seemingly two schools of thought for the rifle hunter , much like there are for the fisher .
Like the angler , who is more revered by some , for pulling the fifty-two inch muskie in with four pound test than on a hundred , the hunter who bags the bear with a twenty-two is a god .

They work for self-defense , but are a little harder to conceal than the average handgun , so are perhaps not the best choice for someone who desires some close range retribution .

People hunt people with handguns .
People hunt animals with rifles , and can protect themselves from people as well .


So , consider this :
Could there be a simple exchange for people to give up the handgun in return for a rifle ?

We get nowhere repeating rhetoric at each other .
Could there be a way in that to find a solution ?


I was in Switzerland many years ago and was told that a long gun is a requirement in each household .
I am not sure that is true , but I was told it was a condition derived from desire for national defense , and that , as a result , almost the entire population could be mobilized almost instantly as a civilian militia .

[Starter]

It was only one buck , as far as I know .

And , I doubt I would have been fined , as , in this case , it would easily have been seen as self-defense .
Those antlers were sharp . I have witnesses .
Wondered if you'd pick up on the pun. :D


So , consider this :
Could there be a simple exchange for people to give up the handgun in return for a rifle ?
Definitely would work for some. I'd find it a tad difficult to fit the long gun in my nightstand though.


We get nowhere repeating rhetoric at each other .
Could there be a way in that to find a solution ?
Oh I agree with that. Many of the posters here keep spewing the same tired arguments over and over, ignoring the real world around them. Most are Europeans, who don't seem to have a good feel for the size of this country (Canada too). There are many people here who do not live in cities & towns. A call to the police, or the fire department for that matter, can result in a wait of a half hour in some places. The folks along the Mexican border, in cities and countryside, have the added pleasure of drug cartels running their lucrative trade through their backyards.

Find a solution? I'm not convinced there is a short or medium term solution. It would be nice if people stopped shooting other people without a really, really good reason. It would be even better if we could have better recognition and treatment for the people with mental issues. We should also note that all of the mass shootings had mental issues involved. I don't have much of an issue with loopholes like gun shows (no background checks) being closed, that's very reasonable. But the call for banning private possession of firearms, I draw the line there.

[D-Type]

Hypothetically, assuming the will were there and it was feasible, people fortified schools or provided armed guards at schools, what would happen? The next fanatic attacks a shopping mall instead. Then they fortify or guard shopping malls as well, what would happen? The next fanatic attacks a condominium. They fortify condominiums (more than they are at present). The next fanatic looks for the next soft target and attacks a spots complex. etc etc

Conversely, assuming the will were there and it was feasible, they banned civilans owning guns then what would the fanatic do? Probably use a knife, an axe or a machete. Would he be able to kill so many people so readily?

But, the will must be there and some posters here are demonstrating that in some cases it is not. And it must be feasible and given the numbers of guns in circulation a ban is not feasible.

So, assuming the will is there to do something, what can be done? It would have to be in stages, say:
(1) The government could make licencing of all guns mandatory
(2) After a couple of years introduce swingeing penalties for possession of an unlicenced gun and couple it with a 'hand in guns'
(3) Introduce 'surrender your arms' or, if the budget could support it 'buy back guns'
(4) combine this with education on what freedoms and fundamental rights really mean
etc

[nigelred5]

Well considering there is more chance I could be struck by lightning than have someone rob my house armed, its not generally something I would get overly paranoid about. ;)

If I lived in a country where they sold guns to civilians for protection purposes then its highly likely that an intruder would be carrying a gun anyway. I suppose a good example for comparison is armed street crime. In the UK we have instances of muggings, and street robberies where knives are involved. Its uncommon but does happen. I think there is such a difference in mentality between our nations though. You guys (some of you) arm yourselves for the possible however remote whereas we wouldn't even think to do that. If that was the case every citizen in the UK would carry a knife just in case they are mugged by someone using a knife. That would be a dangerous situation IMO and the best reaction is to give them what they want and try not to risk your life in the process. Some things just aren't risking your life for and some things just aren't worth getting paranoid about.

The difference is many cities in this country is many criminals aren't content with "merely" robbing you. We live in our country, you live in yours. What works in yours will not work in ours. Criminals don't just turn in their guns.

[race aficionado]

I know there are many among us that are cynics when it comes to what this country (USA) can really do to get out of this crazy rut.


The sentiment out here is very strong with people demanding change.
Our politicians are being asked to make a stand so it will be very interesting to see what will actually transpire.


This goes from the president, to the senators, to the governors, to the mayors and to all the citizens of this country that actually want their chosen representatives to represent their voices.


This could really be a turning point and it is an understatement to say that this is great opportunity for this great country right now.


Many people are sad, many people are pissed off -


. . . . to be continued.

[Roamy]

“You can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands.” quote Heston a true American

[race aficionado]

“You can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands.” quote Heston a true American


ahhhhhh . . . who could forget the old Moses when he took his NRA stand. ;)

But I do hope that as part of this change that we have the chance to seriously tackle,
that mental illness issues are given top priority.

[gloomyDAY]

I think USA is going to increase the abundance of weapons and be more lenient with conceal carry laws. If anything, Sandy Hook has made people more scared and paranoid. Guns will actually be more of an expensive commodity because gun prices have done nothing but increase since the shooting at Sandy Hook.

$800 AR-15s are now going for a minimum of $1000-1200 in some places. Ridiculous!



“You can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands.” quote Heston a true American
Yeah, well, he's dead now, so I guess some widower has already snatched up that gat.

Edit: What the hell is a "true American?"

[Rollo]

I was in Switzerland many years ago and was told that a long gun is a requirement in each household .
I am not sure that is true , but I was told it was a condition derived from desire for national defense , and that , as a result , almost the entire population could be mobilized almost instantly as a civilian militia .

This is true. However and this is just a few of the conditions from Swiss gun legislation:
- all automatic weapons banned.
- all semi-automatic weapons banned.
- all people must get a Weapons Purchasing Permit (and pass a criminal background and psychological test).
- to carry a gun on the street requires a Weapons Carrying Permit (they are normally only given to security and the police).
- all private weapons must be stored in a locked box.
- until 2007, government issued ammunition was kept in sealed boxes which was a criminal offence to open. Now ammunition is not kept at civilian premises.
SR 514.541 Verordnung ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/514_541/index.html#id-4)
SR 514.54 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c514_54.html) (there is a PDF on this page which is quite extensive)

If America tried to enact similar legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside.

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Switzerland probably has the most highly regulated rules for gun ownership in the Western World. This point is almost always ignored by pro-gun people in the United States.

[Starter]

But I do hope that as part of this change that we have the chance to seriously tackle,
that mental illness issues are given top priority.
I'm with you 100% on that.

Though, on second thought, some of us motorsports junkies may have to start looking over our shoulders for the people in the white coats.

[Starter]

Edit: What the hell is a "true American?"
I was going to say an indian, but they're immigrants too, just been here longer.

[Starter]

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You've overlooked the other part of the second amendment, which I've highlighted for you.

[Rollo]

You've overlooked the other part of the second amendment, which I've highlighted for you.

No I didn't:

all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside

You can still bear arms with appropriate regulation. It doesn't interfere with the wording of the Amendment at all.

[Starter]

No I didn't:


You can still bear arms with appropriate regulation. It doesn't interfere with the wording of the Amendment at all.
No you can't - from your quote ....."most people would be disallowed".....

[Rollo]

So you're cherry picking words to look at an argument, just like you choose to interpret the legislation. That's dishonest and a formal fallacy.

[Roamy]

ahhhhhh . . . who could forget the old Moses when he took his NRA stand. ;)

But I do hope that as part of this change that we have the chance to seriously tackle,
that mental illness issues are given top priority.

yes mental illness and guns do not mix. This was a case of just that. What the hell was she thinking putting guns in the hands of this whack kid. He was diagnosed so something could have been done. The father also apparently knew of this and he did nothing except pay a bunch of money. This is a avenue to move forward. Lord knows we have enough bandwidth to have a database.

And Gloomy a true american is one who follows the constitution.

[Starter]

So you're cherry picking words to look at an argument, just like you choose to interpret the legislation. That's dishonest and a formal fallacy.
The freedoms we enjoy as part of our Bill of Rights does not contain anything about "some people" or "certain people" or "need special permission" or "only members of a certain group". It says "The people".
Interpret that yourself.

[race aficionado]

The freedoms we enjoy as part of our Bill of Rights . . . . . It says "The people".
Interpret that yourself.

Yes- the people - but not all people - given what has been happening with the abuse and irresponsible application of that freedom. (when we talk of freedom to keep and bear arms)

[Rollo]

The freedoms we enjoy as part of our Bill of Rights does not contain anything about "some people" or "certain people" or "need special permission" or "only members of a certain group". It says "The people".
Interpret that yourself.

OK I will.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Is it a "a more perfect Union" when this sort of thing happens on a more regular basis than anywhere else in the world? How does giving people access to instruments of death "insure domestic Tranquility" or "promote the general Welfare" of it's citizenry? Is 20 dead children really a shining example of "the Blessings of Liberty"?

If you fought for independence on the "self-evident" reason that people have "certain unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" why then do so many people have the instruments to destroy all three?

The United States craps all over the preamble to its constitution and has failed in the very reason for declaring its independence.

You might talk about defending the citizenry from the "tyranny of government" but it seems to me that the biggest enemy of the United States is "We the People".

[race aficionado]

You might talk about defending the citizenry from the "tyranny of government" but it seems to me that the biggest enemy of the United States is "We the People".

Rollo is on a Roll

[Starter]

Rollo is on a Roll
Thankfully, he doesn't get to vote.

[Roamy]

thankfully, he doesn't get to vote.

amen to that

[nigelred5]

This is true. However and this is just a few of the conditions from Swiss gun legislation:
- all automatic weapons banned.
- all semi-automatic weapons banned.
- all people must get a Weapons Purchasing Permit (and pass a criminal background and psychological test).
- to carry a gun on the street requires a Weapons Carrying Permit (they are normally only given to security and the police).
- all private weapons must be stored in a locked box.
- until 2007, government issued ammunition was kept in sealed boxes which was a criminal offence to open. Now ammunition is not kept at civilian premises.
SR 514.541 Verordnung ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/514_541/index.html#id-4)
SR 514.54 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c514_54.html) (there is a PDF on this page which is quite extensive)

If America tried to enact similar legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside.

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Switzerland probably has the most highly regulated rules for gun ownership in the Western World. This point is almost always ignored by pro-gun people in the United States.

And yet you totally miss the relevant part of the second amendment, that part AFTER the comma: The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[Starter]

And yet you totally miss the relevant part of the second amendment, that part AFTER the comma: The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
If Rollo had his way, he would rewrite the constitution on a minute by minute basis to suit the mood of the day.

[BDunnell]

This is true. However and this is just a few of the conditions from Swiss gun legislation:
- all automatic weapons banned.
- all semi-automatic weapons banned.
- all people must get a Weapons Purchasing Permit (and pass a criminal background and psychological test).
- to carry a gun on the street requires a Weapons Carrying Permit (they are normally only given to security and the police).
- all private weapons must be stored in a locked box.
- until 2007, government issued ammunition was kept in sealed boxes which was a criminal offence to open. Now ammunition is not kept at civilian premises.
SR 514.541 Verordnung ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/514_541/index.html#id-4)
SR 514.54 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c514_54.html) (there is a PDF on this page which is quite extensive)

If America tried to enact similar legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside.

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Switzerland probably has the most highly regulated rules for gun ownership in the Western World. This point is almost always ignored by pro-gun people in the United States.

And, what's more, the whole Swiss attitude towards gun ownership is totally different to that in the USA.

[BDunnell]

If Rollo had his way, he would rewrite the constitution on a minute by minute basis to suit the mood of the day.

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the occasional amendment. Your founding fathers did not have a monopoly on being uniquely wise, you know.

[BDunnell]

Thankfully, he doesn't get to vote.

Why 'thankfully'? I would have thought he seems to be the sort of sensible citizen any country should welcome, and enfranchise accordingly.

[BDunnell]

And Gloomy a true american is one who follows the constitution.

A statement that might be straight out of Animal Farm: 'All Americans are equal, but some are more equal than others'. There is no such thing as a 'true American', a 'true Briton' and so on. Those who say such things have far too narrow a view as to what constitutes nationality, citizenship and national identity.

[BDunnell]

The difference is many cities in this country is many criminals aren't content with "merely" robbing you.

And why is that, do you think? Might it have something to do with the underlying attitudes to firearms possession and ease of purchase?

[Robinho]

If everyone is dead set on holding up the wording and intention of the Bill of rights (which incidentally seems to borrow heavily from the pre-existing English bill of rights) then you should be limited to keeping and bearing arms that are equivalent to what was available at the time. Your forefathers could not have predicted the weaponry available a couple of hundred years later, nor, in the infancy of the union, predicted that what they wrote then would be expected to be followed to the letter long into the future without room for the world to have evolved in so many ways. Your rights should be limited to muskets and civil war era rifles, not what has been invented since as they were not the "arms" intended by your precious and outdated bills. Incidentally how many amendments to the constitution have there been now? 27 or so? So there is clearly a mechanism for improving on the original model in the face of modernity?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[BDunnell]

Hypothetically, assuming the will were there and it was feasible, people fortified schools or provided armed guards at schools, what would happen? The next fanatic attacks a shopping mall instead. Then they fortify or guard shopping malls as well, what would happen? The next fanatic attacks a condominium. They fortify condominiums (more than they are at present). The next fanatic looks for the next soft target and attacks a spots complex. etc etc

And still no-one would care, so ingrained is the attitude that extra security is a price worth paying. I think it's a deeply pernicious process, personally.

[nigelred5]

And why is that, do you think? Might it have something to do with the underlying attitudes to firearms possession and ease of purchase?

So we should also ban kitchen knives, hunting knives, turkey trimmers, samurai swords?... It's not only guns that criminals use to commit crimes. I had a butcher knife held to my throat in my own home while I our home robbed at 15 years of age. I am alive because my father woke up, heard something downstairs and chased the criminals from the home with my 12 gauge that I had not yet put away in my gun cabinet after a day of duck hunting. The criminals were never cought but they definitely have #8 scars in their a$$. That will NEVER happen to me or my family again.

Our government is broken. Why would we have ANY faith in their ability to legislate an effective solution to violent crim?e. I'd start with challenging Hollywood to quit sensationalizing violence. The same with the video gaming industry. We are also a country that was attacked and still at war. DO I agree with the current continued military involvement in Afghanistan? NO. DO I entirely support some of our meddling, No, however we americans do support our soldiers that we pay to protect our shores and gun ownership is strongly tied to our tied to patriotism. When the soldiers are away, it is our duty to protect ourselves.

[BDunnell]

So we should also ban kitchen knives, hunting knives, turkey trimmers, samurai swords... It's not only guns that criminals use to commit crimes.

I find this a weak argument, to be honest. They may be dangerous, but none of them have the destructive power of a firearm. There is simply no comparison. Most also have a perfectly reasonable secondary usage, with the exception of samurai swords, and it's not as if these are exactly freely available.



Our government is broken. Why would we have ANY faith in their ability to legislate an effective solution to violent crime. I'd start with challenging Hollywood to quit sensationalizing violence. The same with the video gaming industry.

This would all be fiddling around the edges. The attitudes that need to be changed run rather deeper than tackling violent films and video games (not that I believe they need to be tackled, given that one person's view of undue violence is totally different to another's).

[nigelred5]

I find this a weak argument, to be honest. They may be dangerous, but none of them have the destructive power of a firearm. There is simply no comparison. Most also have a perfectly reasonable secondary usage, with the exception of samurai swords, and it's not as if these are exactly freely available.



This would all be fiddling around the edges. The attitudes that need to be changed run rather deeper than tackling violent films and video games (not that I believe they need to be tackled, given that one person's view of undue violence is totally different to another's).


I can walk to the variety store at the end of my street and buy a samurai sword in about ten minutes. There is no regulation of any sort for something like that. Would you prefer a sabre? I can buy one of them as well from the arab fellow down the street. Destructive power? I worked for ten years in a shock trauma Hospital. I know destructive power of a knife very well. Knife wounds outnumbered gunshot wounds 20X over.

Every one of the mass killings was almost scripted straight out of a movie. As is much of the violence in our society.

You REALLY just don't understand the mentality of our society.

[BDunnell]

I can walk to the variety store at the end of my street and buy a samurai sword in about ten minutes. There is no regulation of any sort for something like that. Would you prefer a sabre? I can buy one of them as well from the arab fellow down the street. Destructive power? I worked for ten years in a shock trauma Hospital. I know destructive power of a knife very well. Knife wounds outnumbered gunshot wounds 20X over.

Every one of the mass killings was almost scripted straight out of a movie. As is much of the violence in our society.

You REALLY just don't understand the mentality of our society.

I'm getting quite a reasonable idea from some of the contributions to this discussion, believe me, though this won't stop me finding it unpleasantly alien and, in the supposedly modern, civilised world, inexplicable.

It beggars belief, as far as I'm concerned, to suggest that films and video games are primarily at fault. You're just searching around for excuses, scapegoats and ways of avoiding the real issues. Films and video games are not the problem; on occasion there may be warped interpretations of them, but this in itself is not reason to legislate. There's enough prurience and over-caution about what's 'suitable' for people to watch and not watch as it is. And it is also legitimate to ask whether or not these forms of entertainment have their roots in a society that's violent enough in any case. These things don't exist in a vacuum.

[Rollo]

Our government is broken. Why would we have ANY faith in their ability to legislate an effective solution to violent crime. I'd start with challenging Hollywood to quit sensationalizing violence. The same with the video gaming industry. We are also a country that was attacked and still at war. DO I agree with the current continued military involvement in Afghanistan? NO. DO I entirely support some of our meddling, No, however we americans do support our soldiers that we pay to protect our shores and gun ownership is strongly tied to our tied to patriotism. When the soldiers are away, it is our duty to protect ourselves.

Oh it's "the government's fault" that this happened is it? Can you provide any evidence for this at all?

No, the American people are broken and badly so.

Let's just look at the aspect of war shall we? Even if you use the most expansive estimates, a total of 90,800 people have been killed to date as a result of the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In that period the number of people killed in the United States due to guns has been about 140,000. Who are you supposedly protecting yourselves from? Other Americans?

[Rollo]

If Rollo had his way, he would rewrite the constitution on a minute by minute basis to suit the mood of the day.

The Constitution itself has been amended another 17 times on top of the original 10. It already happens.

Of course legislation should be amended to suit current conditions. Are we to assume that you still think that slavery is acceptable too? It took 76 years and a war for the American people to work that one out and another five years before you gave black people the rights to be citizens after they'd been slaves.

[Mark]

Anonymous steps in: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church Over Threat To Picket Sandy Hook Vigil (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/17/anonymous-hacks-westboro-baptist-church-sandy-hook_n_2315727.html)

[nigelred5]

Oh it's "the government's fault" that this happened is it? Can you provide any evidence for this at all?

No, the American people are broken and badly so.

Let's just look at the aspect of war shall we? Even if you use the most expansive estimates, a total of 90,800 people have been killed to date as a result of the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In that period the number of people killed in the United States due to guns has been about 140,000. Who are you supposedly protecting yourselves from? Other Americans?

Where did I once say it was the government's fault OR that government regulation was the solution?. I argue exactly the opposite. The government should stay the F out of a lot more than they do. They can't legislate morality, and they have certainly failed in their attempts to do so. At present, our defacto two party system is incapable of enacting any meaningful, effective or enforceable legislation. Face it, they just aren't. Our goventment IS broken and that comes straight from a broken society, something I think we both agree on. People are friggin morons. Ever seen Idiocracy. It's a horrible movie, but it highlights a frightening reality. We are creating lazy friggin morons. I now have to compose government regulations and correspondence at a friggin 4th grade level. 4th Grade.

MORE gun legislation is not the answer when they can't even enforce the legislation on the books now. They could start with UNIFORM regulations, but then uniform regulations aren't always the best answer and SCOTUS has recently ruled many local gun regulations violate the 2nd amendment.

I teach my kids morality. I don't rely on the goventment, nor should I. I also teach my kids to defend themselves the most effective way possible. Both kids have learned Krav Maga. Both kids are more than merely proficient with firearms, and both kids are aware of their surroundings. I don't live in a "bad" area. Quite the opposite actually. Far more like the town in Connecticut than not, yet things happen as we have seen. I am protecting myself period.

[nigelred5]

The Constitution itself has been amended another 17 times on top of the original 10. It already happens.

Of course legislation should be amended to suit current conditions. Are we to assume that you still think that slavery is acceptable too? It took 76 years and a war for the American people to work that one out and another five years before you gave black people the rights to be citizens after they'd been slaves.


And one of them happened to be a total reversal of an ill advised attempt at a blanket prohibition based on morality.

[nigelred5]

I'm getting quite a reasonable idea from some of the contributions to this discussion, believe me, though this won't stop me finding it unpleasantly alien and, in the supposedly modern, civilised world, inexplicable.

It beggars belief, as far as I'm concerned, to suggest that films and video games are primarily at fault. You're just searching around for excuses, scapegoats and ways of avoiding the real issues. Films and video games are not the problem; on occasion there may be warped interpretations of them, but this in itself is not reason to legislate. There's enough prurience and over-caution about what's 'suitable' for people to watch and not watch as it is. And it is also legitimate to ask whether or not these forms of entertainment have their roots in a society that's violent enough in any case. These things don't exist in a vacuum.
Again, I do not advocate altering the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech any more than I advocate altering the intent of the second amendment. We have made changes to the constitution and we have undone changes.
I do advocate self control and self regulation by Hollywood and society in general. We agree, society has its ills. So we need movies, videos, books and video games to glamorize them? In this country we have a saying regarding the media, "if it bleeds, it leads". That is friggin horrible, I don't care who you are. We generally don't watch broadcast news in my house because of that. If I need weather, I watch the weather. If I want sports, I consult the sports outlets. You want to know where our soldiers are going to attack next, watch the friggin news. They'll tell you. Just because you HAVE the a protected right in this country dosesn't mean you HAVE to exercise it just to push the envelope, but I would NEVER argue with outright restriction of rights our country was founded upon and the founders felt were so important as to put them into the document that frames our country.

[nigelred5]

And why is that, do you think? Might it have something to do with the underlying attitudes to firearms possession and ease of purchase?

Most criminals don't walk into gun stores and buy guns. They legally can't actually. I have owned firearms since I was 10 years old. I've actually never lived in a home that didn't have firearms, and I've never had problem purchasing them, even being a life long resident with some of the strictest firearms restrictions in the US., yet I've never robbed, beaten strangled or raped a soul. I still cannot legally carry a firearm on my person, concealed or otherwise except for hunting. It remains virtually impossible to obtain a legal CC permit in my state. I am subject to a background check and a mandatory waiting period to purchase a vast number of firearms. I am subject to a state check on the purchase of ALL firearms. I also respect restricting felons and those with proven diagnosed mental defect. I accept those restrictions despite believing they are infact, infringements on guaranteed and protected rights.

[schmenke]

...and ease of purchase?

Watching the evening news last night I was shocked to learn that the rifle used in the school killings was available for purchase from Walmart on-line :s

[schmenke]

.... I still cannot legally carry a firearm on my person, concealed or otherwise except for hunting. It remains virtually impossible to obtain a legal CC permit in my state. I am subject to a background check and a mandatory waiting period to purchase a vast number of firearms. I am subject to a state check on the purchase of ALL firearms. I also respect restricting felons and those with proven diagnosed mental defect. I accept those restrictions despite believing they are infact, infringements on guaranteed and protected rights.

That sounds very reasonable nigelred5. If other states mandated similar legislation it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

However, do you honestly believe that restriction of firearms to both convicted felons and the clinically mentally imbalanced is a violation of their rights? :s

[nigelred5]

That sounds very reasonable nigelred5. If other states mandated similar legislation it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

However, do you honestly believe that restriction of firearms to both convicted felons and the clinically mentally imbalanced is a violation of their rights? :s

Do I believe I should automatically forfeit my rights because I am diagnosed with depression? I'm not, nor have I ever to be perfectly clear, but even a single situational DX would disqualify me from owning a firearm. If I check Y, I'm done. That isn't totally right IMHO. If I check N and I'm being untruthful, that's jailtime.
Convicted Felons by law forfeit several rights under federal law, one of which is gun ownership. SO, if someone were convicted of tax evasion, punishable by more than 12 months in prison, that person has just invalidated their ability to ever own a firearm. where is that any indication of a tendency towards violence? Violent offenders, No problem. It's hard to know where to draw that line, which is the problem with legislation.

[Mark]

Do I believe I should automatically forfeit my rights because I am diagnosed with depression? I'm not, nor have I ever to be perfectly clear, but even a single situational DX would disqualify me from owning a firearm. If I check Y, I'm done. That isn't totally right IMHO. If I check N and I'm being untruthful, that's jailtime.
Convicted Felons by law forfeit several rights under federal law, one of which is gun ownership. SO, if someone were convicted of tax evasion, punishable by more than 12 months in prison, that person has just invalidated their ability to ever own a firearm. where is that any indication of a tendency towards violence? Violent offenders, No problem. It's hard to know where to draw that line, which is the problem with legislation.


Which is why many countries take the line of members of the public not being permitted to own guns - at all. Much easier.

[schmenke]

...
Convicted Felons by law forfeit several rights under federal law, one of which is gun ownership. SO, if someone were convicted of tax evasion, punishable by more than 12 months in prison, that person has just invalidated their ability to ever own a firearm. where is that any indication of a tendency towards violence? ...

It demonstrates a tendency to blatantly violate laws.

I would go so far as to suggest that the single background check be validated on a regular basis; a mandatory update every couple of years (or is this already the case?).

[SGWilko]

Do I believe I should automatically forfeit my rights because I am diagnosed with depression? .

Do you know in what way that depression may manifest itself should you suffer from it?

I've seen first hand the effects of depression - my father unfortunately suffers from it. I've accompanied him to his GP where he had to beg to be admitted to hospital for treatment, as he knew how much worse it would get if left untreated.

[nigelred5]

Watching the evening news last night I was shocked to learn that the rifle used in the school killings was available for purchase from Walmart on-line :s

A Bushmaster is nothing more than a semi automatic single fire( one squeeze, one shot, no capability of burs or fully automatic fire) rifle that uses the basic architecture of a military rifle. I can also buy a .50BMG cal rifle that delivers an exponentially more devestating round from 3x the distance. A bit heavy but takes a moose down quite nicely. It also holds the record for a long distance kill shot by a military sniper, yet it does not carry the same restrictions as an AR15.

It can be purchased online SOME PLACES, but it is still a federally regulated firearm and all federal and state laws regarding long arms and semi automatic weapons apply. You can't just click "Buy" and walmart will ship an AR15 to your door in 3 days. There are hundreds of online stores where an Ar15 can be purchased, and all of the same federal and state laws apply as if you walked into a store. You still have to complete Federal background information and complete an online purchase still has to be shipped to a licensed FFL in my state, including a bushmaster brand AR15. Walmart was selling what is called a post-ban firearm. semi automatic, no bayonet lug, no flash supressor, non threaded muzzle.. etc.
Kind of like a civilian HUMMER vs a military HMMWV. They look alike, but are very different in some very key differences.

[nigelred5]

It demonstrates a tendency to blatantly violate laws.

I would go so far as to suggest that the single background check be validated on a regular basis; a mandatory update every couple of years (or is this already the case?).

I honestly have no problem complying with registrations, even though it is an infringement legally. I am a law abiding gun owner. I can't speak for the other 49 jurisdictions, but in my state, if I am convicted of a felony or hospitlaized for MI, the convicted felon has to surrender all firearms IIRC. It also only applies to the registered owner. It doesn't matter if I have ten familiy members that are markedly affected by MI or are felons. Yeah, I already know the counter argument... weapons shouldn't be in that home PERIOD. That is part of RESPONSIBLE ownership. There are databases that are checked and cross checked in my state, but i am a highly restricted state. IIRC, an EP is crosschecked with the registry of firearms owners as well. Not all states have these laws though. My limited understanding of Connecticut though is it is a moderately strict state in which to own firearms. It is HIGHLY unlikely The mother bought her bushmaster online absent any government knowledge. She was also a legal licensed owner of both handguns. IIRC, Connecticut also has clear laws regarding gun locks, locks required when minors live in the home, and strict laws on transportation of weapons. In the case of the CT shooter, he and his older brother were well known to accompany his mother to the gun range. Not at all suprised to hear that. The kid knew how to run an ar15, that is clear. He also obviously had access to the weapons. My keys go to work with me. I can't control what my kids would do when I sleep, but they can't shoot me wiht my own gun, that I know.

[SGWilko]

It doesn't matter if I have ten familiy members that are markedly affected by MI or are felons.

Is there a point to to gun legislation then if this not insignificant aspect is ignored?

[schmenke]

A Bushmaster is nothing more than a semi automatic single fire( one squeeze, one shot, no capability of burs or fully automatic fire) rifle that uses the basic architecture of a military rifle. I can also buy a .50BMG cal rifle that delivers an exponentially more devestating round from 3x the distance. A bit heavy but takes a moose down quite nicely. It also holds the record for a long distance kill shot by a military sniper, yet it does not carry the same restrictions as an AR15.

It can be purchased online SOME PLACES, but it is still a federally regulated firearm and all federal and state laws regarding long arms and semi automatic weapons apply. You can't just click "Buy" and walmart will ship an AR15 to your door in 3 days. There are hundreds of online stores where an Ar15 can be purchased, and all of the same federal and state laws apply as if you walked into a store. You still have to complete Federal background information and complete an online purchase still has to be shipped to a licensed FFL in my state, including a bushmaster brand AR15. Walmart was selling what is called a post-ban firearm. semi automatic, no bayonet lug, no flash supressor, non threaded muzzle.. etc.
Kind of like a civilian HUMMER vs a military HMMWV. They look alike, but are very different in some very key differences.

My point is that I was shocked to learn that firearms are available for purchase from stores in the U.S. that around here are normally associated with household items like toilet paper, dog food, etc. :s

[schmenke]

I honestly have no problem complying with registrations, even though it is an infringement legally. ....

How are registrations an infringement?

You still have the right “to bear arms” and indeed own several firearms despite the strict regulations in your state.

Regulations are imposed to ensure that the right is abided by responsible citizens. If a citizen cannot demonstrate responsibility, then he/she poses a potential risk and thereby forfeits his/her right :mark:

[Gregor-y]

I'm a bit conflicted about restrictions for former felons as in many states it's also used to permanently deny the right to vote. Once someone has completed their sentence and probation (or successful treatment of mental concerns for that matter) they should have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship again.

Permanent stigmas really aren't the American way, with the possible sad exception of race.

[gloomyDAY]

My point is that I was shocked to learn that firearms are available for purchase from stores in the U.S. that around here are normally associated with household items like toilet paper, dog food, etc. :s The gun industry hauls in $30 billion annually. There are places in America where you can walk into a store, purchase an item, and walk out with a gun as an incentive.

[donKey jote]

People are friggin morons.

precisely !

[chuck34]

It beggars belief, as far as I'm concerned, to suggest that guns are primarily at fault. You're just searching around for excuses, scapegoats and ways of avoiding the real issues. GUNS are not the problem; on occasion there may be warped uses of them, but this in itself is not reason to legislate. There's enough prurience and over-caution about what's 'suitable' for people to buy as it is. And it is also legitimate to ask whether or not these forms of entertainment have their roots in a society that's violent enough in any case. These things don't exist in a vacuum.

Works just the same with my changes.

[nigelred5]

My point is that I was shocked to learn that firearms are available for purchase from stores in the U.S. that around here are normally associated with household items like toilet paper, dog food, etc. :s

IIRC, WalMart is the largest retailer of firearms in the world. I'm not aware of them selling handguns, but that may just be one of our local restrictions. I buy a good bit of my ammunition from Walmart and I actually have purchased a shotgun and a rifle from WalMart. The gun section is two aisles down from dog food at my closest walmart. Some municipalities do prevent gun sales in WalMart. WalMart sells everything short of human beings, and that's probably debatable. One of the super centers near me sells powerboats.

[nigelred5]

The gun industry hauls in $30 billion annually. There are places in America where you can walk into a store, purchase an item, and walk out with a gun as an incentive.

That's not a joke. I got a Henry .22 lever action when I purchased a car about 15 years ago. Beautiful gun.

[nigelred5]

Is there a point to to gun legislation then if this not insignificant aspect is ignored?

Nope. Which is one of many reasons why it is ineffective. Connecticut has laws requiring gun locks and locked gun storage in households with children under 18 I believe. How well did that work? Apparently the mother either didn't have her guns locked or the 20 year old son knew where she kept the keys.

[nigelred5]

I can understand why people who are in to hunting owning fire arms. You can own shot guns and single shooters in the UK with the correct license. My question is, what does the average person living in suburbia need a gun for? We keep seeing this obsession with rights like its a religion, but what are the reasons?

Self Protection. To hunt. Because our constitution say we can.

Do you NEED a Ferrari 599? It is Illegal to exceed the speed limit, so why is it legal to produce road legal cars capable of tripling the speed limit.

[chuck34]

I can understand why people who are in to hunting owning fire arms. You can own shot guns and single shooters in the UK with the correct license. My question is, what does the average person living in suburbia need a gun for? We keep seeing this obsession with rights like its a religion, but what are the reasons?

Why does it matter? Millions of people own guns that have never been nor ever will be used in a crime? Why MUST you take something away from them? Many people have many different reasons, sport, entertainment, collecting, personal protection from criminals, or an oppressive government. Who is to be the arbiter of the "correct" reason to own a gun? You? Why are your views on the subject any more valid than anyone else's?

[ioan]

But might it perhaps be possible to 'downgrade' the sort of guns owned by members of the general public?
Surely it should never be necessary to have anything more than a handgun for the purpose of home protection, and yet I recently came across something on the telly:
An episode of Sons of Guns (TV-show, I know, but hardly a farfetched fantasy), a man walks in with a revolver and asks for repairs to it, as he had just acquired it from somewhere, cant remember the story of it.. Well, anyway, he is asked what he needs it for, 'Just home protection', and the next thing you hear: 'Have you thought of a shotgun?'. So we now move from a handgun to a shotgun to protect our home? Why does that sound like more of a business decision than a security assessment?
I understand that guns are most likely part of US society, so the only possibility must be reduction as opposed to complete removal.

Shot guns? Bah, that's so yesterday, now the trend in the US is assault rifles!

[nigelred5]

I'm a bit conflicted about restrictions for former felons as in many states it's also used to permanently deny the right to vote. Once someone has completed their sentence and probation (or successful treatment of mental concerns for that matter) they should have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship again.

Permanent stigmas really aren't the American way, with the possible sad exception of race.

I agree, but what of the person convicted of attempted Murder wiht a handgun? Do you want to take the chance the offender Won't try it again? Are mental conditions ever successfully treated. They are successfully IN treatment and controlled. they could certainly resurface. Prevention of gun ownership for VIOLENT offenders I'm behind 100%, and that is an exception to the 2nd amendment that even the staunchest advocates have little objection to.

[ioan]

That is a good point henners. Around here the risk of home invasion is minimal to begin with...

That's because polar bears are so much more civilized than people! ;)

[chuck34]

If you live in a country where you need guns for protection in your own home then something needs to change.

Perhaps I don't need a gun to protect my home, but it makes me feel better having one. What is wrong with that?


We live in the free world after all, well we do anyway.

And yet you are arguing for more government intervention into people's lives? Strange....


You can apply for shot gun licenses here too, not everybody goes out and buys one though.

And not everyone in the US has a gun either, what's your point?


I can't see what this has to do with anything? Was that a random quote?

The point you seem to be trying to make is that no one "needs" a gun, so why not outlaw them. Nigel is simply pointing out that no one "needs" a car that can go faster than the posted speed limit. And since cars traveling at a speed greater than the posted speed limit have a high likelihood of killing someone. Then by your logic, shouldn't those cars be outlawed as well? I mean I can't understand anyone living in a country where you need to travel at 100 miles per hour or more.

[nigelred5]

Do you know in what way that depression may manifest itself should you suffer from it?

I've seen first hand the effects of depression - my father unfortunately suffers from it. I've accompanied him to his GP where he had to beg to be admitted to hospital for treatment, as he knew how much worse it would get if left untreated.

Yes, I am well aware of the clinical manifestations of the broad spectrum of affective disorders. First hand personally and professionally. Access to mental health care is a worldwide problem for a variety of reasons. It sucks.

[nigelred5]

Because you have far too many instances of people walking in to schools and executing children. People commit suicide in all countries, but rarely do we have someone take as many people with them as possible using a device that provides instance death, which is what it is designed to do after all. American isn't alone with this sort of killing I know, but it has an appalling record.

I can give my opinion on it because I live in a society where handguns were banned in 1997 after a nutter carried out a similar act of human destruction on a Primary School in Scotland. It wasn't popular to some at the time but people did it. It can be done as has been proven.

Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_%28Amendment%29_%28No._2%29_Act_1997)

Just looking at the faces of the children at Sandy Hook who were cruelly taken should make every gun owning American ask the question; do I really need a gun?
The answer is so obvious to people from the outside, but we don't have the fear you guys do being pumped through our media.

Because the reason we feel we NEED a firearm for protection clearly isn't as obvious to you from the outside. The fear can be and is unquestionably exaggerated by the media, on both sides and by both political agandas, but it can be and is a VERY real threat in far too many places in this country. The cause of that fear is not firearms.

[chuck34]

Because you have far too many instances of people walking in to schools and executing children.

And there are even more instances every day of people being killed on highways by people that are traveling at a high rate of speed, and many of whom are over the legal limit of alcohol. So again, by your logic we should outlaw cars that can travel in excess of the posted speed limit, and let's bring back alcohol prohibition while we're at it.

People commit suicide in all countries, but rarely do we have someone take as many people with them as possible using a device that provides instance death, which is what it is designed to do after all. American isn't alone with this sort of killing I know, but it has an appalling record.


I can give my opinion on it because I live in a society where handguns were banned in 1997 after a nutter carried out a similar act of human destruction on a Primary School in Scotland. It wasn't popular to some at the time but people did it. It can be done as has been proven.

So that means that you are an expert on what is right for US citizens?


Just looking at the faces of the children at Sandy Hook who were cruelly taken should make every gun owning American ask the question; do I really need a gun?
The answer is so obvious to people from the outside, but we don't have the fear you guys do being pumped through our media.

Yes every citizen should ask THEMSELVES that question and decide for THEMSELVES. Why must the government decide?

Where does this "government deciding what's best for us" stop? At guns? How about cars? Smoking is no good, why not just outright ban that? Food? After-all obesity is a huge (pardon the pun) problem, that causes millions of deaths every year. New York city is trying to ban salt, why not just make it a Federal ban? What about speech? There are a lot of people out there saying all kinds of "crazy" thing, shouldn't we stop them? Where does government intrusion into our lives stop? Where is that line? Is there a line? Does the concept of personal responsibility even exist anymore?

[chuck34]

Is the risk of being attacked really that bad?

Maybe, maybe not. Why do YOU get to decide for ME?


Because we might not have guns readily available to us, but live in less fear than you do.

I personally live in no fear, and I own no guns. But I understand that some people do live in fear and do own guns. Why should they be denied that right? I also understand that some people just want to own guns for the sake of owning guns. Why should they be denied that right?


Its all well saying you have 'freedom', but if you live in a society where you feel you need to arm yourselves against the big bad world, its not exactly being free is it?

How is protecting yourself from a "big bad world" mean I don't have freedom? Taking rights away so I "feel safer" doesn't really make me any more free.

[nigelred5]

Is the risk of being attacked really that bad?

Because we might not have guns readily available to us, but live in less fear than you do. Its all well saying you have 'freedom', but if you live in a society where you feel you need to arm yourselves against the big bad world, its not exactly being free is it?

In some places, yes unfortunatley it is.

[nigelred5]

Yes every citizen should ask THEMSELVES that question and decide for THEMSELVES. Why must the government decide?

Where does this "government deciding what's best for us" stop? At guns? How about cars? Smoking is no good, why not just outright ban that? Food? After-all obesity is a huge (pardon the pun) problem, that causes millions of deaths every year. New York city is trying to ban salt, why not just make it a Federal ban? What about speech? There are a lot of people out there saying all kinds of "crazy" thing, shouldn't we stop them? Where does government intrusion into our lives stop? Where is that line? Is there a line? Does the concept of personal responsibility even exist anymore?

+1. I decide what is best for me.

[chuck34]

Anyone here know what the worst murder of school children in the US is?

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)

Better outlaw anything that can make a bomb too. You know, just to be "safe".

[ioan]

This is true. However and this is just a few of the conditions from Swiss gun legislation:
- all automatic weapons banned.
- all semi-automatic weapons banned.
- all people must get a Weapons Purchasing Permit (and pass a criminal background and psychological test).
- to carry a gun on the street requires a Weapons Carrying Permit (they are normally only given to security and the police).
- all private weapons must be stored in a locked box.
- until 2007, government issued ammunition was kept in sealed boxes which was a criminal offence to open. Now ammunition is not kept at civilian premises.
SR 514.541 Verordnung ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/514_541/index.html#id-4)
SR 514.54 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c514_54.html) (there is a PDF on this page which is quite extensive)

If America tried to enact similar legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside.

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Switzerland probably has the most highly regulated rules for gun ownership in the Western World. This point is almost always ignored by pro-gun people in the United States.

I like it how we can always count on you to give us the facts! Thanks! :up:

[BDunnell]

Maybe, maybe not. Why do YOU get to decide for ME?

The sort of comment that almost suggests that the person making it is against the very concept of laws. An adult might want to have sex with a five-year-old. Who, according to your reasoning, is to say whether they should or shouldn't?



I personally live in no fear, and I own no guns. But I understand that some people do live in fear and do own guns. Why should they be denied that right?

Those who live in fear should not be pandered to, for fear is a negative, often irrational thing and policy should be made on a rational basis.

[BDunnell]

Because the reason we feel we NEED a firearm for protection clearly isn't as obvious to you from the outside. The fear can be and is unquestionably exaggerated by the media, on both sides and by both political agandas, but it can be and is a VERY real threat in far too many places in this country. The cause of that fear is not firearms.

I would contest that the two things cannot simply be viewed in isolation. Do you not consider it deeply sad that anyone should feel the need to have a firearm for protection? I do. To me it's completely unimaginable that such a situation can be reached.

[ioan]

The freedoms we enjoy as part of our Bill of Rights does not contain anything about "some people" or "certain people" or "need special permission" or "only members of a certain group". It says "The people".
Interpret that yourself.

Yeah, right give a gun to every lunatic otherwise you will break a 200+ years old law! LOL and me thinking it is already 2012!

[ioan]

Thankfully, he doesn't get to vote.

I guess he would have a hard time voting for any of your pro machine gun politicians.

[BDunnell]

Works just the same with my changes.

No it doesn't, because a gun is inherently a more dangerous thing than is a film or a video game. This is where I make the distinction, and I consider it an important one. Your trouble is that, to you, guns are a way of everyday life.

[chuck34]

The sort of comment that almost suggests that the person making it is against the very concept of laws. An adult might want to have sex with a five-year-old. Who, according to your reasoning, is to say whether they should or shouldn't?

Not at all. Sex with a five-year-old harms someone and violates their rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. For me (or any of the millions of legal gun owners in this country) to legally own a firearm does no harm to anyone. And in fact might even prevent harm from coming to me.


Those who live in fear should not be pandered to, for fear is a negative, often irrational thing and policy should be made on a rational basis.

Fear is not the sole motivation for people to own guns. Sport and "just because" are factors in many people's minds when they buy/own firearms.

Ask someone who has protected their own Life, Liberty, or Property if they feel "pandered" to. Read up on the recent shootings at the mall in Oregon, or the theater in Texas, and ask those that were there, but unharmed, if they were being "pandered" to when those with weapons cut short those madmen's murderous plans.

[chuck34]

No it doesn't, because a gun is inherently a more dangerous thing than is a film or a video game. This is where I make the distinction, and I consider it an important one. Your trouble is that, to you, guns are a way of everyday life.

"The pen is mightier than the sword".

And guns are not a way of everyday life for me.

[ioan]

I'm a bit conflicted about restrictions for former felons as in many states it's also used to permanently deny the right to vote.

Sounds like a 'free' country to me. :s

[ioan]

I can understand why people who are in to hunting owning fire arms. You can own shot guns and single shooters in the UK with the correct license. My question is, what does the average person living in suburbia need a gun for? We keep seeing this obsession with rights like its a religion, but what are the reasons?

Paranoia?
Can you blame them with all the violence and terrorist danger news they are being fed with day and night?

[ioan]

Nope. Which is one of many reasons why it is ineffective. Connecticut has laws requiring gun locks and locked gun storage in households with children under 18 I believe. How well did that work? Apparently the mother either didn't have her guns locked or the 20 year old son knew where she kept the keys.
he was already 20, which is over 18.

[Starter]

The sort of comment that almost suggests that the person making it is against the very concept of laws. An adult might want to have sex with a five-year-old. Who, according to your reasoning, is to say whether they should or shouldn't?
I don't know, is the five year old really hot?? (Stupid answer by me to a stupid question.)




Those who live in fear should not be pandered to, for fear is a negative, often irrational thing and policy should be made on a rational basis.
OK, now we have people who "live in fear" having some of their rights taken away. Who will be the next ones to lose some of their rights?

[ioan]

Because our constitution say we can.

:rolleyes:

Maybe your constitution should say you are all allowed to have free access to medical care. Just goes to show that the founding fathers of your nation were no visionaries, not a bit.

[ioan]

Maybe, maybe not. Why do YOU get to decide for ME?

Why do you get so upset over nothing?

[chuck34]

free access to medical care.

Ha! Haven't you ever heard, there's no such thing as a free lunch? The Founders knew that if the government was going to provide something to someone else that they would first have to confiscate it from another. They were not about to start confiscating anything from anyone. You know that whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" thing. But we're way off topic now.

[Hawkmoon]

Surely there is a simple compromise? Obviously banning all firearms won't work so why not simply ban those that are able to cause the most damage in the hands of a lunatic? Ban automatic and semi-automatic hand guns and rifles as well as high capacity magazines. People can still own bolt-action rifles and revolvers for hunting, target shooting and self defense.

It's not perfect but the Second Amendment is upheld (people can still own a gun) and the impact of events like Newtown are lessened (5 shots between reloads has to be less devastating than 30).

[chuck34]

Did you copy and paste something I had said previously word for word, because you are trying to argue that 'cars' are designed to kill people too? Cars do kill people in accidents, but they are not weapons. Throwing up examples of dangerous every day devices still doesn't get away from the fact guns have a purpose to kill, and they are very effective in doing so. A car is a mode of transport used by people all over the world and yes they kill people, but that is not what they are designed to do. The 'everything is dangerous' slant will not work in this instance.

Millions upon millions of people own guns. The vast majority of them will never commit crimes. Most of them do not own a gun to kill people. The vast majority of people own guns for sport or entertainment (with the benefit of personal protection). So I would argue your point that the purpose of a gun is solely to kill.

Everything IS dangerous, if used in an improper way. You can not legislate that away.

[ioan]

Ha! Haven't you ever heard, there's no such thing as a free lunch?

You're right, it was exchanged for free killing of 6 year old kids!What an improvement. :rolleyes:

[Starter]

Where does this "government deciding what's best for us" stop? At guns? How about cars? Smoking is no good, why not just outright ban that? Food? After-all obesity is a huge (pardon the pun) problem, that causes millions of deaths every year. New York city is trying to ban salt, why not just make it a Federal ban? What about speech? There are a lot of people out there saying all kinds of "crazy" thing, shouldn't we stop them? Where does government intrusion into our lives stop? Where is that line? Is there a line? Does the concept of personal responsibility even exist anymore?
That's the reason only lightly touched upon in this thread. It's also the predominate reason I support our second amendment and the reason it was put in there in the first place. It's the ultimate right of any people to change their government when that government becomes too oppressive. It's recently been exercised in Libya and Tunisia and is currently being exercised in Syria. It was exercised by us in the late 1700s. There may be some future time when we need to do it again. Both Nixon & Bush II tried to go in that direction without success. I am not willing to bet there will never be someone who, in the crisis of the moment, tries that again. Once you let any of the freedoms you enjoy go, be it speech, assembly, press or anything else - like bearing arms, you won't easily get them back.

[chuck34]

Surely there is a simple compromise? Obviously banning all firearms won't work so why not simply ban those that are able to cause the most damage in the hands of a lunatic? Ban automatic and semi-automatic hand guns and rifles as well as high capacity magazines. People can still own bolt-action rifles and revolvers for hunting, target shooting and self defense.

It's not perfect but the Second Amendment is upheld (people can still own a gun) and the impact of events like Newtown are lessened (5 shots between reloads has to be less devastating than 30).

With the number of rounds that are being reported as having been fired, even if this guy had 30 round magazines, he still had to reload multiple times. Sadly smaller magazines wouldn't have changed things noticeably. Automatic guns are effectively banned, and not used in this case. Do you honestly think that in this situation a bolt action .22 would have had fundamentally different results?

Why is it so hard for some to realize that there is evil in this world, and that no about of legislation will change that.

[chuck34]

You're right, it was exchanged for free killing of 6 year old kids!What an improvement. :rolleyes:

That's such a sick statement that I won't even respond.

[Starter]

Did you copy and paste something I had said previously word for word, because you are trying to argue that 'cars' are designed to kill people too? Cars do kill people in accidents, but they are not weapons. Throwing up examples of dangerous every day devices still doesn't get away from the fact guns have a purpose to kill, and they are very effective in doing so. A car is a mode of transport used by people all over the world and yes they kill people, but that is not what they are designed to do. The 'everything is dangerous' slant will not work in this instance.
Cars are exactly like guns in that, if they are misused, death and destruction can result. So the comparison is valid.

[schmenke]

Cars are exactly like guns in that, if they are misused, death and destruction can result. So the comparison is valid.

Absolutely false.

The sole design and purpose of an assault rifle is to kill human beings as quickly and efficiently as possible.

An automobile, as mentioned, is a mode of transportation.

Yet, we mandate the registration of the former without thought :rolleyes:

[donKey jote]

Yet, we mandate the registration of the former without thought :rolleyes:

The founders obviously didn't have any cars.

[schmenke]

Not to mention vehicle operation requires a regularly updated government-issued operator’s license, registration and insurance, whereas firearm ownership, um, er...

[ioan]

That's such a sick statement that I won't even respond.

Don't try to improve your society, better not to want to give an answer then to give up on guns. It's great to have the 'freedom' of choice isn't it?

[ioan]

Cars are exactly like guns in that, if they are misused, death and destruction can result. So the comparison is valid.

Because if guns are used properly then all they do is perfume the house and plant flowers, right?

[ioan]

An automobile, as mentioned, is a mode of transportation.

So is a gun, free and fast transportation between this world and the one of Hades.

[ioan]

Not to mention vehicle operation requires a regularly updated government-issued operator’s license, registration and insurance, whereas firearm ownership, um, er...

You forgot regular technical inspection and winter tires.

[race aficionado]

Posted before but very apropó
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/20/6y3ere5u.jpg

[Starter]

Because if guns are used properly then all they do is perfume the house and plant flowers, right?
They do the following:
1) Provide meat for those who hunt.
2) Provide a source of competition and skill for those who target shoot.
3) Provide some defense against those who would invade one's home to steal or assault the occupants.
4) Provide a means of recourse against abusive government. (Rarely used, but necessary for free people remaining free over the long term.)

[Starter]

Absolutely false.

The sole design and purpose of an assault rifle is to kill human beings as quickly and efficiently as possible.

An automobile, as mentioned, is a mode of transportation.

Yet, we mandate the registration of the former without thought :rolleyes:
Re read what I wrote and tell me again exactly how, as stated, it's false. You have added other, not stated, qualifications. Also, how does intended use, as opposed to actual use, have anything to do with it?

[Starter]

Don't try to improve your society, better not to want to give an answer then to give up on guns. It's great to have the 'freedom' of choice isn't it?
Yes, it is. Too bad you don't have it. I feel for your loss.

[Rollo]

Self Protection. To hunt. Because our constitution say we can.
Do you NEED a Ferrari 599? It is Illegal to exceed the speed limit, so why is it legal to produce road legal cars capable of tripling the speed limit.

It's also legal to produce HGV's, Semis, APCs etc. but it doesn't mean that we just let everyone use them does it? There are conditions which accompany the use of heavy vehicles on the road and in some cases even stricter limits on the speeds that they travel.
More generally, there are a host of rules about where one can drive, where they can park, how fast you can drive and where. You can't just arbitrarily drive at 130mph past a school at 3pm on a Wednesday. It's dangerous and the law reflects this.
Germany, which by the way has even stricter rules about how to behave on the roads, about the proper maintenance and the design rules which go into the building of a motor car.

[Starter]

More generally, there are a host of rules about where one can drive, where they can park, how fast you can drive and where. You can't just arbitrarily drive at 130mph past a school at 3pm on a Wednesday. It's dangerous and the law reflects this.
Ah, but you can do it anytime you want. You'll be breaking the law of course, but your vehicle will allow you to do that.

It keeps coming back to some people believing that, just because there is a law, bad things won't happen. Those people are WRONG.

[Rollo]

Ah, but you can do it anytime you want. You'll be breaking the law of course, but your vehicle will allow you to do that.

It keeps coming back to some people believing that, just because there is a law, bad things won't happen. Those people are WRONG.

The law most certainly shapes people's behaviour doesn't it? If the speed limit is 60km/h people will generally obey it. If a police car is driving down the street, then almost as if by magic people follow the law more closely. Put up a speed camera and fine people for breaking the law and people almost certainly drive past at under 60km/h.
The enforcement of speed limits varies between NSW and Victoria. Drive in NSW and people tend to cruise along at 115km/h on the motorway (in a 110 zone) but the second you stray into Victoria, people will almost sit at exactly 110 for they reason they they know that the law is harsher.

Of course bad things will invariably happen. Enforce the law and enact tougher legislation and the effect of it is seen in a safer society. Hence the reason why I live in a nation almost 50 times safer on a per capita basis when it comes to the issue of firearms.

Research proves over and over again that more guns trends with more homicide.
Homicide - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)

[BDunnell]

Yes, it is. Too bad you don't have it. I feel for your loss.

I pity you for holding a view so depressing — that freedom can only be had by way of possession of guns.

[BDunnell]

Not at all. Sex with a five-year-old harms someone and violates their rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. For me (or any of the millions of legal gun owners in this country) to legally own a firearm does no harm to anyone. And in fact might even prevent harm from coming to me.

I believe your concept of gun ownership has injected into US society at best a deeply unpleasant element, and I believe it has, subconsciously perhaps, contributed to many a tragedy. Attempt in your mind to separate them out if you wish, but I feel it's a link that deserves deeper consideration than you or your ilk are prepared to give it.



Ask someone who has protected their own Life, Liberty, or Property if they feel "pandered" to.

The triteness of these concepts as expressed by you and others like you is apparent in your need pointlessly to capitalise them — quite apart from the fact that you go on about them as though they are America's and America's alone. Given the well-known lack of knowledge of the more insular American about other countries, I would suggest that this view is misguided.

[BDunnell]

"The pen is mightier than the sword".

And guns are not a way of everyday life for me.

I meant 'you' as in 'America', or 'Americans'.

[BDunnell]

Cars are exactly like guns in that, if they are misused, death and destruction can result. So the comparison is valid.

I simply don't believe it is. You ignored completely the very reasonable point made, namely that a car is not intended as a weapon; a gun is. You might argue that this is unimportant — I would disagree completely. I, for one, would never want to possess anything intended purely as a weapon, for it's completely unnecessary, and would indicate to me that things, whether in my life or the society in which I live, had gone badly wrong.

[ioan]

They do the following:
1) Provide meat for those who hunt.
2) Provide a source of competition and skill for those who target shoot.
3) Provide some defense against those who would invade one's home to steal or assault the occupants.
4) Provide a means of recourse against abusive government. (Rarely used, but necessary for free people remaining free over the long term.)

All of them useless or outdated needs.

[ioan]

Yes, it is. Too bad you don't have it. I feel for your loss.

:laugh:
The downside for me is that I will not have to worry about my children's lives being wasted. I can live with it.

[Robinho]

I fully support your right to own a gun (not so sure about all the things invented since the founding fathers did their it, maybe you shouldn't have a right to those), I would also fully support 500% tax on guns and 1000% tax on ammo. Feel free to own one, and a couple of bullets if it makes you feel safe, but you could never afford to amass enough of either to go on a spree

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[BDunnell]

All of them useless or outdated needs.

No 2, I think, can't be criticised. Target shooting is a perfectly legitimate sport.

[BDunnell]

:laugh:
The downside for me is that I will not have to worry about my children's lives being wasted. I can live with it.

Which of us seem more relaxed in ourselves — the Europeans or the Americans?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You are 30 times more likely to be shot in America than you are in the UK. The downside to this for us Brits is that we can only change our government through voting in elections. Somehow this makes us less free?

Maybe Obama's handling of this will define his presidency more than the killing of Bin Laden or his economic plans. He could go down in history as the president who finally made Americans see sense at the madness of these massacres.

[BDunnell]

You are 30 times more likely to be shot in America than you are in the UK. The downside to this for us Brits is that we can only change our government through voting in elections. Somehow this makes us less free?

Think about how warped a notion it is — the gun as a symbol of positivity.

[Valve Bounce]

I know there are many among us that are cynics when it comes to what this country (USA) can really do to get out of this crazy rut.


The sentiment out here is very strong with people demanding change.
Our politicians are being asked to make a stand so it will be very interesting to see what will actually transpire.


This goes from the president, to the senators, to the governors, to the mayors and to all the citizens of this country that actually want their chosen representatives to represent their voices.


This could really be a turning point and it is an understatement to say that this is great opportunity for this great country right now.


Many people are sad, many people are pissed off -


. . . . to be continued.

Race, my mind boggles as to how The United States of America is going to even partially get rid of 200+million guns. How can this be processed?

Then, not to be outdone, we are having random drive-by shootings regularly in Australia. I think it is gang related, possibly drug turf warfare, but us Ozzies are not going to let the US of A get away with all the attention; Our guys shot one dead, it seems.

[Starter]

No 2, I think, can't be criticised. Target shooting is a perfectly legitimate sport.
I should think since it's in the Olympics and most countries field teams.

[TyPat107]

Race, my mind boggles as to how The United States of America is going to even partially get rid of 200+million guns. How can this be processed?

Then, not to be outdone, we are having random drive-by shootings regularly in Australia. I think it is gang related, possibly drug turf warfare, but us Ozzies are not going to let the US of A get away with all the attention; Our guys shot one dead, it seems.

It will never happen here. I am not a gun nut or even pro-gun but I know that no one will ever come and take everyones guns. I fail to see how it would be possible and I don't get how people believe it could happen. At best they might get some registered weapons, some. But there are plenty of people with plenty of unregistered weapons. And people will find another way. Case in point, I posted earlier about a school shooting here in town. The shooter tried to buy a firearm and the background checks were taking too long or he didn't pass them so he went and bought a compound bow and arrows and giant knives. His "note" was released today and he was a very very disturbed individual who basically diagnosed himself with Aspbergers syndrome and because he believes CHina is a far more responsible nation than we are.

[chuck34]

I believe your concept of gun ownership has injected into US society at best a deeply unpleasant element, and I believe it has, subconsciously perhaps, contributed to many a tragedy. Attempt in your mind to separate them out if you wish, but I feel it's a link that deserves deeper consideration than you or your ilk are prepared to give it.



The triteness of these concepts as expressed by you and others like you is apparent in your need pointlessly to capitalise them — quite apart from the fact that you go on about them as though they are America's and America's alone. Given the well-known lack of knowledge of the more insular American about other countries, I would suggest that this view is misguided.

Your condescending tone is not welcome here, and does your arguments no favor. I have never once said that those concepts are American's alone. They are capitalized in the document I am referring to, so if you have an issue with that perhaps you should take it up with Mr. Jefferson. And your insular views of the American is disturbing to me. You drone on and on about how people in the US are not "tolerant" of other's views, and yet you show absolutely zero tolerance of the views of those who happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment is there for a purpose. The Bill of Rights is not some random collection of stuff. They were well thought out and introduced in the order they were for a reason (it's to protect us from the government, since you probably have no idea of said reason).

And you will come back, yet again, with some clap-trap about how you feel sorry for Americans because we all live in fear, and need to be pandered to. Yet the data proves out that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than die in one of these mass shootings. But still you are so fearful and paranoid about this happening to you that you must beg your government (and our's as well I suppose) to pander to your fears and outlaw guns. I feel sorry for you that you feel so powerless to do anything on your own. I feel sorry for you that you must grovel at the feet of your leaders to protect you, feed you, take care of you. Most citizens of the United States feel much differently. We feel that government is a hindrance to us, that they do nothing to lift us up, only drag us down. But in all your "tolerant" views, you will simply miss that point totally.

[nigelred5]

Posted before but very apropó
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/20/6y3ere5u.jpg

Short of the tag and title(handguns and guns like an AR15 are registered) liability insurance and the annual renewals of a licence my state requires all of that for handgun and restricted gun purchases already.


And to address BDunnell's assertion that we live in fear, quite the contrary. I am quite comfortable in my ability to defend myself. I am not fearful, but I am prepared. I don't live in fear, but I am quite in touch with the realities of living and working where I do. I work in a violent city. Removing firearms from my possession does nothing to make any situation safer for me. REGULATING, recording, monitoring, etc. sales, I'm fine as I have said before. I am a licensed firearms owner, I am a registered owner and I am a federally licensed collector. I have no problem being registered or having the government knowing how many firearms I own. They'll know they will have a fight the day they ever come to even attemt to take them. Outright BANNING, and restricting sales, ownership and possession and the ilk, I am not.

[Bagwan]

Is it illegal to have large thermo-nuclear devices in schools ?

I asked about why guns are generally banned in most schools in the US , but I didn't really get many straight answers .

You could probably whack a good bunch of people with a school chair , if you really tried .
And , pencils are sharp .
You can strangle anyone with thier own shirt .


It seems like there's a point at which an item becomes "overkill" , when we are trying to reach a safe place .
Perhaps it's just the efficiency of the item in it's ability to take lives .

When someone has reached the point at which they want to make this sort of statement , it seems they will opt for the numbers .


This guy could have taken even more lives with a full auto , and reports are showing he was trying to purchase guns only a few days earlier .
It is only because he was denied by regulations that he was forced to opt for his mother's weapons .

Without those regulations , he easily could have plugged far more wee children .

With a decent thermonuclear device , he could have taken out the whole town .

[Knock-on]

Most criminals don't walk into gun stores and buy guns. They legally can't actually. I have owned firearms since I was 10 years old.

What is it with you Americns and breaking gun Laws? We get one member that boasts he wanders around Europe with an illegal concealed firearm and now you.

I believe where you live, it is a Class D Felony for anyone under the age of 21 to own a Firearm. Class D is a serious Felony carrying a imprisonment term of between 5 and 10 years and up to $250k fine, yet you boast here that you have had owned a firearm since you were 10.

Do you think it sensible for all 10 year old children to have posession of fireams or just the 'good' criminals like you?

Utterly amazing :(

[nigelred5]

he was already 20, which is over 18.

Thank you for the math lesson. The point was, the registered owner is required to keep individual guns locked, with a stricter standard of storing locked guns in locked storage for homes with children under 18. The son was not the registered owner and SHOULD NOT have had access to the locked weapons. The keys to my weapons are in my pocket with me at all times and kept in my finger print controlled gunsafe at night where only I can access them. I am a responsible gun owner. She clearly was not unfortunately for the 28, she clearly was not considering she had a 20 year old son with known neurological and emotional problems.

[nigelred5]

:rolleyes:

Maybe your constitution should say you are all allowed to have free access to medical care. Just goes to show that the founding fathers of your nation were no visionaries, not a bit.

And tax me 60+% of my personal earnings to pay for those too damed lazy to work for it... Naaah, you can keep that system. Government regulation and the socialized program we already have is 90% of the problem. an I know this first hand. I work in it and strive every day to eliminate the problems we do have where I am able.

[nigelred5]

I pity you for holding a view so depressing — that freedom can only be had by way of possession of guns.

Our country's freedom from a tyrannical government was earned through private possession of firearms ... a fact that was not lost by the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights of our country. One that was so important to our founders that is spelled out and guaranteed not to be infringed in the document that rules our country. That right is second only to the right to free expression.

[nigelred5]

Surely there is a simple compromise? Obviously banning all firearms won't work so why not simply ban those that are able to cause the most damage in the hands of a lunatic? Ban automatic and semi-automatic hand guns and rifles as well as high capacity magazines. People can still own bolt-action rifles and revolvers for hunting, target shooting and self defense.

It's not perfect but the Second Amendment is upheld (people can still own a gun) and the impact of events like Newtown are lessened (5 shots between reloads has to be less devastating than 30).

Not a one of these shootings was carried out with an automatic weapon. In essence they already are banned or tightly regulated. I agree it is unreasonable to have unrestricted access to what I call high capacity magazines, but that definition varies. The aurora shooter had a drum magazine that failed after 30 rounds, which is very common. 10 rounds or 30 rounds, it really is a difference in a second or two. Banning semi-automatic handguns, shotguns, rifles ..Good luck with that. Even the 1994 assault weapons ban wasn't really a ban, it was a restriction that in essence created guns like the civilian bushmaster.

[nigelred5]

Not to mention vehicle operation requires a regularly updated government-issued operator’s license, registration and insurance, whereas firearm ownership, um, er...

You might want to check local US laws. Remember, These things are NOT regulated at the Federal level in this country. Many states do have required permits that do require renewal. I'm not aware of any carry permits that do not require renewal. You don't need a permit to OWN a car. You do need a permit to operate it on the road. That's not totally different than in the US. you are not allowed to carry in many juristictions without a permit. in most states, you can not hunt anywhere outside of your own property without a hunting permit, whether it be firearms, archery or bare handed. Hunters are prohibited from hunting with anything other than black powder, shotguns or archery in my county.

There is a gross misconception that firearms purchase and ownership is totally unregulated in this country. That is far from reality, but that is not the place of the federal government. That's precisely the type of regulation our constitution is supposed to prevent. Firearms regulations are a state issue and are regulated as local attitudes deem fit, provided they do not contravene the second amendment. States CAN and DO regulate, and occasionally those regulations are deemed unconstitutional when deemed overly restrictive.

[Bagwan]

A buddy of mine , in a kind of uncomfortable way , told me yesterday that the bushmaster was the rifle he was thinking of getting his wife for Christmas .
They are originally from North Carolina , and live here with thier daughter to be safe .

They live about five miles from me .

They hunt . I have some of the venison in my freezer .

For them , it isn't a feeling of overt oppression by a horribly restrictive government , but rather , a feeling of safety , due to still being armed , but in a society that doesn't condone weapons designed for killing humans .
They simply feel much less likely to greet a handgun on the street or at thier door .

We're redneck enough in my country to have had the government scrap a really expensive gun registry program due to public outcry . And , but for Quebec , all provinces have destroyed the records they did manage to compile .



Hell , I played "army" when I was a kid , and i was a ruthless foe , taking no prisoners .

And , there were a few "wackos" back then as well .

But , rarely were they so efficient . They didn't have the right tools .

[SGWilko]

I'd never buy my wife a gun - it'd be the death of me!

It is a very confusing and, dare I say primative message that this thread has given me of the USA. It seems a little less extreme across the border in Canada, but the same mindset is there too.

Would there be the same public outcry now to a registry in light of recent events?

[schmenke]

Merry Christmas from the family!

Scottsdale Gun Club in Arizona invites children to pose with Santa... and a fire arm | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066860/Scottsdale-Gun-Club-Arizona-invites-children-pose-Santa--arm.html#ixzz1ezVAjx32)

"...
A gun club in Scottsdale, Arizona is inviting children to pose for pictures with Santa Claus – and a high-powered firearm.
Each family member carries their choice of weapon, from pistols to $80,000 machine guns. ..."

[SGWilko]

Merry Christmas from the family!

Scottsdale Gun Club in Arizona invites children to pose with Santa... and a fire arm | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066860/Scottsdale-Gun-Club-Arizona-invites-children-pose-Santa--arm.html#ixzz1ezVAjx32)

"...
A gun club in Scottsdale, Arizona is inviting children to pose for pictures with Santa Claus – and a high-powered firearm.
Each family member carries their choice of weapon, from pistols to $80,000 machine guns. ..."

:jawdrop:

[nigelred5]

:jawdrop:

It is at a gun club I'd like to point out.. Not at a shopping mall.

[nigelred5]

A buddy of mine , in a kind of uncomfortable way , told me yesterday that the bushmaster was the rifle he was thinking of getting his wife for Christmas .
They are originally from North Carolina , and live here with thier daughter to be safe .

They live about five miles from me .

They hunt . I have some of the venison in my freezer .

For them , it isn't a feeling of overt oppression by a horribly restrictive government , but rather , a feeling of safety , due to still being armed , but in a society that doesn't condone weapons designed for killing humans .
They simply feel much less likely to greet a handgun on the street or at thier door .

We're redneck enough in my country to have had the government scrap a really expensive gun registry program due to public outcry . And , but for Quebec , all provinces have destroyed the records they did manage to compile .



Hell , I played "army" when I was a kid , and i was a ruthless foe , taking no prisoners .

And , there were a few "wackos" back then as well .

But , rarely were they so efficient . They didn't have the right tools .

they have tried a full stop registry program in my state... expensive, ineffective and probably the largest argument was an unacceptable level of government intrusion.. They also tried to serialize ammunition.

[SGWilko]

It is at a gun club I'd like to point out.. Not at a shopping mall.

Does it matter where it is - not really the correct environment for children, is it?

[Starter]

Does it matter where it is - not really the correct environment for children, is it?
Children learning about guns, their safe operation and use, is not a bad thing.

[Bagwan]

I'd never buy my wife a gun - it'd be the death of me!

It is a very confusing and, dare I say primative message that this thread has given me of the USA. It seems a little less extreme across the border in Canada, but the same mindset is there too.

Would there be the same public outcry now to a registry in light of recent events?

Everybody has the freedom to have that "mindset" , certainly .
You can own a gun .

A gun gives one a real sense of power , and is a real thrill to shoot .
The higher the destructive power in your hands , the more thrill .

That's the reality of it .

I think you'd be surprised at how long the line-ups would be if there was a chance for the average Brit to try his/her hand at just firing an automatic weapon if there was a free day at a shooting range in downtown London .

The shooting range is the only place you can fire a handgun in Canada legally , unless you're a cop , and rifles are generally bought to suit the furry animal , rather than the naked ape .

I don't hunt , but , at one time , I was responsible for groundhog control on the farm .
They can be a wily foe , but the skill in placing the perfect shot where the earthpig tumbled down the hole , never to be seen again , became the object .
It was a job , and the rifle was the tool .
I was twelve , and capable of picking off animals two feet tall at long range with an open sight bolt action Win Cooey .22 . I was a twelve year old sniper .

I live in a place where I trust my neighbour , and he/she trusts me .

And , I don't own a gun .

So , maybe it is a "mindset" , but not a particularly paranoid one .

[Starter]

Our country's freedom from a tyrannical government was earned through private possession of firearms ... a fact that was not lost by the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights of our country. One that was so important to our founders that is spelled out and guaranteed not to be infringed in the document that rules our country. That right is second only to the right to free expression.
Would it be impolite to point out that it was the Brits which caused us to come to that conclusion in the first place? :D :D

[schmenke]

Children learning about guns, their safe operation and use, is not a bad thing.

Minors are not permitted in gun clubs around here :s

[nigelred5]

I started waterfowl hunting at 8 with a .410 shotgun. I can still drop a canvasback with one of those little hummers. I agree with Starter. Teaching firearm safety is a way of life in my environment, regardless of any public safety concerns. My son started hunting squirrels with me around 9. He's not keen on standing in 40 degree water hunting ducks, but I haven't been to the gun range in 3 years that he wasn't with me. He's a beast shooting clays with a .410. We eat everythign we kill. Haven't had to kill an intruder yet. I don't plan to aim to kill. I'm really not into the thought of having to eat a person ;)

[nigelred5]

Would it be impolite to point out that it was the Brits which caused us to come to that conclusion in the first place? :D :D

Not in my opinion ;)

[Gregor-y]

Would it be impolite to point out that it was the Brits which caused us to come to that conclusion in the first place? :D :D

They were Brits, too. ;) Not me, though. I can't trace anyone in the US before 1850.

[Don Capps]

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.
Justice Potter Stewart

In the immediate wake of the massacre in Connecticut of twenty children aged six or seven years old as well as six members of the school's faculty, there were those, The Usual Suspects (those here and elsewhere), who began to instantly beat the drums about their "rights" under the Second Amendment to bear arms. Their tone-deafness and alligator tears would usually elicit a response that one had nothing but contempt for such folks, but in this case they are beneath contempt.

[Starter]

In the immediate wake of the massacre in Connecticut of twenty children aged six or seven years old as well as six members of the school's faculty, there were those, The Usual Suspects (those here and elsewhere), who began to instantly beat the drums about their "rights" under the Second Amendment to bear arms. Their tone-deafness and alligator tears would usually elicit a response that one had nothing but contempt for such folks, but in this case they are beneath contempt.
Sorry to challenge the "facts" of that, but it was post #9 in this thread before you had the first defense of the right to bear arms.

[SGWilko]

Sorry to challenge the "facts" of that, but it was post #9 in this thread before you had the first defense of the right to bear arms.

Post 9 of over 500........

Perspective is a little fuzzy too I fear.

[Don Capps]

Sorry to challenge the "facts" of that, but it was post #9 in this thread before you had the first defense of the right to bear arms.

That it took all of NINE (9) posts for the whining to begin by the gun nuts....

[nigelred5]

Try bringing up passing government laws affecting religion and see how long it takes.

[nigelred5]

They were Brits, too. ;) Not me, though. I can't trace anyone in the US before 1850.

Not all of them were.

[keysersoze]

I got through 14 pages of this before skipping up here to the front of the queue. It's too bad that discussion here quickly deteriorated into attacks on American gun culture, then American culture in general, the "you people this" and "you people that," and, finally, the personal attacks--now going both ways--our own little metaphorical gun battle. No casualties, of course, but in some ways worse.

The issues surrounding the Connecticut massacre are mult-faceted, and many here are guilty of oversimplifying what is a complicated problem, too complicated to be approached with sweeping generalizations, cherry-picked data, and slippery slope logic.

Moreover, little or nothing can be solved by being rude. An argument, in the best academic sense (and this is an academic argument), is to broaden a topic, not narrow it--to develop respect for a position rather than defeat it. And some of us break rule #1 when arguing: establishing your credibility, not by simply being informed, but by being cordial, too. You may have terrific ideas but if you are rude, few will care.

Signed,
a non gun-owning American (but I'm 1/4 Filipino--mom came over on a boat in '52), who teaches in a high school (so this tragedy hits close to home), who wants a gun (the wifey isn't quite there yet), but also thinks stricter regulations on gun ownership is a wise concession

[SGWilko]

Try bringing up passing government laws affecting religion and see how long it takes.

What, before someone is shot?

[race aficionado]

. . . .Signed,
a non gun-owning American (but I'm 1/4 Filipino--mom came over on a boat in '52), who teaches in a high school (so this tragedy hits close to home), who wants a gun (the wifey isn't quite there yet), but also thinks stricter regulations on gun ownership is a wise concession

Hi keysersoze :)
I'm curious, do you wish to own a gun because of what has happened and you would be willing to take it to school if allowed?

[nigelred5]

What, before someone is shot?

Less than 9 posts for the "whiners" to surface. ;)

[keysersoze]

Hi keysersoze :)
I'm curious, do you wish to own a gun because of what has happened and you would be willing to take it to school if allowed?

Gun ownership has been a heated topic of discussion between my wife and I for a couple of months now, before all this transpired. My brother has a veritable arsenal--a Glock 19, two Kel-tec Sub2000s, and about 3-4 others. He took a 5-day shooting course and has a permit to carry. He's over-the-top, but even my 70 year-old mother has three handguns and a shotgun.

If I was approached my administration I would be interested in carrying a handgun at my school, with proper training, of course. I recognize that the possibility of an attack is remote, but we are vulnerable. Our school is a private one, but not in the best area of town. We have one armed security person on campus, and for many buildings one needs a swipe card to enter. On the other hand, the door to my classroom has a big window, opens inward and, therefore, cannot be barricaded. We have lockdown procedures but have never drilled it.

All I really want is a 9mm semi-automatic with a small-ish clip, 10 shots or so, enough to protect my wife and I in our home.