American gun laws

[SneakyD]

And how did that work out for the average German? You can't just selectively now opt to punt the "Ah, I never said..." line when you've been whining on about that very thing for the last three pages.

 

Again, what is your point? Please tell me you have one.

Lock Stock, lies and ad hominem attacks are not the honest exchange of ideas and points of view.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Lock Stock, lies and ad hominem attacks are not the honest exchange of ideas and points of view.

 

I think you're getting your Latin tags confused. Either have a point here, or at least stop supporting partisan and misleading rhetoric based on Godwin's Law.

[BADFEET]

Reading some of these pages, it is an interesting debate.

 

Lots of fact and figures about how many are kiiled in gun related crime in the USA, the fact is no one has ever done a study to see how many lives are saved from criminals because of gun ownership.

 

You couldnt do the study bacuase no one is going to come forward and say "yes, I thought about breaking into a house to rape, murder and steal from the occupants but I didnt in case they shot me"

 

Its a totally un-known positive effect and one that can never be proven, which sort of knocks the wind out of the anti gun argument.

 

Any law passed on a one sided argument is always going to be bad law.

 

I was pleased to see the NRA take the "no retreat" stance they did as if you give any ground at all to government in these matters they wont stop (as we well know)

If only we had a similar organisation over here who defended us as strongly.

[Steppenwolf]

Alas, history illustrates you're wrong - the Jews had guns in the Warsaw Ghetto, in Lithuania and other pockets of resistance. None of which made a happ'th of difference to the over all outcome and would not have prevented the genocide which was enacted against them.

 

 

The Uprising in the POlish Ghetto took heavy Nazi casualties as well and they learned that armed men do not go quietly to concentration camps. The belorussians jews also were armed and worked with Russian partisans to attack the Nazis in guerilla attacks.

[Steppenwolf]

I have looked up what the Godwin Law is:

"It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

So if I was to make a comparison that the Communists after seizing power in 1917 also put in gun registration/confiscation what law would I be guilty of?

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

I have looked up what the Godwin Law is:

"It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

So if I was to make a comparison that the Communists after seizing power in 1917 also put in gun registration/confiscation what law would I be guilty of?

 

Same thing - you'd be deliberately looking the most extreme example and then taking it out of context in order to suit your needs/agenda and then trying to conflate it with a disparate issue where it doesn't fit.

 

The stupidity of some here who've tried to conflate Hitler/Stalin/Idi Amin et al with what Obama is doing by signing an Executive Order to restrict assault-type weapons in a civilian setting is beyond crass - and "Ah, but I found it on YouTube" excuses does not change that picture.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Reading some of these pages, it is an interesting debate.

 

Lots of fact and figures about how many are kiiled in gun related crime in the USA, the fact is no one has ever done a study to see how many lives are saved from criminals because of gun ownership.

 

You couldnt do the study bacuase no one is going to come forward and say "yes, I thought about breaking into a house to rape, murder and steal from the occupants but I didnt in case they shot me"

 

Its a totally un-known positive effect and one that can never be proven, which sort of knocks the wind out of the anti gun argument.

 

Any law passed on a one sided argument is always going to be bad law.

 

I was pleased to see the NRA take the "no retreat" stance they did as if you give any ground at all to government in these matters they wont stop (as we well know)

If only we had a similar organisation over here who defended us as strongly.

 

Actually yes they have - Harvard had a continuing study on-going for years until the its funding was cut under Bush jnr. One of the elements in Obama's latest Executive Order is to unfreeze that funding, ramping it up to $10,000,000.00 in order to get it back on track. Also, it's findings (before it was cut) illustrated that weapons kept at home did not help save people from home invasion - quite the opposite, there was a reported one-in-four deaths of family members being shot with their own weapon or killing another family member.

 

Here's a link to what the latest Executive Order makes provision: and specifically this section:

 

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. End the freeze on gun violence research.

 

 

The Uprising in the POlish Ghetto took heavy Nazi casualties as well and they learned that armed men do not go quietly to concentration camps. The belorussians jews also were armed and worked with Russian partisans to attack the Nazis in guerilla attacks.

 

And this is meant to prove what?

Edited January 18, 2013 by Lock Stock & Barrel

[Vince Green]

That is actually incorrect. There were about 35000 total deaths last year in USA out of those 8700 gun deaths, 260 justifiable homicide by gun owner, 420 justifiable homicide by police. 69 % suicides, leaves you with about 2058 gun deaths, of those 74% are gang related so again left with about 600 gun deaths although much higher than UK not a statistically big number considering the US population and its status as the number 1 most heaviliy armed country in the world.

 

Your figures are all wrong, you are mixing gun death figures with homicides. Gun deaths from all causes are pretty consistant at around 30,000 per annum. Look at the graph

 

 

http://www.slate.com...n_at_least.html

 

 

The biggest cause of deaths is simple, having loaded guns in the house and in cars and pockets without proper safeguards and proper training. Its not about crime or self defence.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Vince Green

[JonathanL]

Reading some of these pages, it is an interesting debate.

 

Lots of fact and figures about how many are kiiled in gun related crime in the USA, the fact is no one has ever done a study to see how many lives are saved from criminals because of gun ownership.

 

You couldnt do the study bacuase no one is going to come forward and say "yes, I thought about breaking into a house to rape, murder and steal from the occupants but I didnt in case they shot me"

 

Its a totally un-known positive effect and one that can never be proven, which sort of knocks the wind out of the anti gun argument.

 

Any law passed on a one sided argument is always going to be bad law.

 

I was pleased to see the NRA take the "no retreat" stance they did as if you give any ground at all to government in these matters they wont stop (as we well know)

If only we had a similar organisation over here who defended us as strongly.

 

This has been done. People have done studies by interviewing prisoners about various aspects of crime and why they do what they do and why they don't do certain things. One thing which was noted was that criminals rarely break into houses they think are occupied because they fear getting shot. The USA has a far lower rate of burglary of occupied premises than we do.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Same thing - you'd be deliberately looking the most extreme example and then taking it out of context in order to suit your needs/agenda and then trying to conflate it with a disparate issue where it doesn't fit.

 

The stupidity of some here who've tried to conflate Hitler/Stalin/Idi Amin et al with what Obama is doing by signing an Executive Order to restrict assault-type weapons in a civilian setting is beyond crass - and "Ah, but I found it on YouTube" excuses does not change that picture.

 

The problem is that Godwins Law is very often used as a means of instantly shutting up an opponent by implying that as soon as you mention thre Nazis at all you are out of the debate. This is stupid because it means you can't use the Nazis even where the point is perfectly valid. Y

 

The point you are failing to see is not that Obama is the next Hitler but that once you start with restrictions then where do you stop and what situation are you going to be in come 50 years time when some lunatic comes to power. Also, this the USA, not Europe. It's only a few generations back that they kicked us out by force of arms. Had they not been in possession of the military weapons of the day they they would still be a British colony.

 

You cannot just say that because America is a modern wealthy western democracy that no American is ever going to be subjugated by their own government. Has everyone forgotten that it was only about 150 years ago that a huge part of American society was actually owned as chatels of the other part in the same way in which they owned hourses, dogs and livestock? The reason they ceased to be is due to the fact that there was a huge armed confict which changed the situation. Had they not had weapons that could not have happened. In fact, it's still well within living memory that black people in certain parts of the US were legally second-class citizens who did not have the rights of other people so it is disingenous to say that the US government is not capable horrible acts against its own citizens and that fears of similar things happening are unfounded.

 

J.

 

Actually yes they have - Harvard had a continuing study on-going for years until the its funding was cut under Bush jnr. One of the elements in Obama's latest Executive Order is to unfreeze that funding, ramping it up to $10,000,000.00 in order to get it back on track. Also, it's findings (before it was cut) illustrated that weapons kept at home did not help save people from home invasion - quite the opposite, there was a reported one-in-four deaths of family members being shot with their own weapon or killing another family member.

 

Here's a link to what the latest Executive Order makes provision: and specifically this section:

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this is meant to prove what?

 

I don't understand that. Are you saying that one in four people who keep a gun in the house for defence kill either themselves or a family member annualy? Surely of that were the case then the population of the USA would be roughly halved in about eight years?

 

J.

Edited January 18, 2013 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

Your figures are all wrong, you are mixing gun death figures with homicides. Gun deaths from all causes are pretty consistant at around 30,000 per annum. Look at the graph

 

 

http://www.slate.com...n_at_least.html

 

 

The biggest cause of deaths is simple, having loaded guns in the house and in cars and pockets without proper safeguards and proper training. Its not about crime or self defence.

 

How do you conclude that? Most gun deaths in the USA are suicides so that doesn't fit with your statement. There are just over 600 accidental shooting deaths a year in the USA and that has ben decreasing for several years.

 

J.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

The problem is that Godwins Law is very often used as a means of instantly shutting up an opponent by implying that as soon as you mention thre Nazis at all you are out of the debate. This is stupid because it means you can't use the Nazis even where the point is perfectly valid. Y

 

Nah, it's invariably used where someone makes the schoolboy error of pronouncing such unctuous nonsense as, "AH! Just like Hitler/The Nazis!", when in fact, it's nothing like and they're trying to make a tediously poor conflation. EVERYONE in this thread who's mentioned Hitler, Stalin and the rest has been guilty of contravening Godwin's Law. The evidence is there for all to see... at least until they scurry off and delete it from record so no one can read their mistakes.

 

The point you are failing to see is not that Obama is the next Hitler but that once you start with restrictions then where do you stop and what situation are you going to be in come 50 years time when some lunatic comes to power. Also, this the USA, not Europe. It's only a few generations back that they kicked us out by force of arms. Had they not been in possession of the military weapons of the day they they would still be a British colony.

 

No. That's not the point, or indeed anything like it. It's just merely paranoid speculation on your part.

 

You cannot just say that because America is a modern wealthy western democracy that no American is ever going to be subjugated by their own government. Has everyone forgotten that it was only about 150 years ago that a huge part of American society was actually owned as chatels of the other part in the same way in which they owned hourses, dogs and livestock? The reason they ceased to be is due to the fact that there was a huge armed confict which changed the situation. Had they not had weapons that could not have happened. In fact, it's still well within living memory that black people in certain parts of the US were legally second-class citizens who did not have the rights of other people so it is disingenous to say that the US government is not capable horrible acts against its own citizens and that fears of similar things happening are unfounded.

 

Poppycock. That's just absolutism and false dichotomy - I would normally say, 'but do go on', but on this occasion, you've clearly not read the entire thread.

 

I don't understand that. Are you saying that one in four people who keep a gun in the house for defence kill either themselves or a family member annualy? Surely of that were the case then the population of the USA would be roughly halved in about eight years?

 

J.

 

Yeah. Unfortunately you begin and reply to a lot of posts in the same condition Jonathan. Alas, it's a cross we must bear.

[ordnance]

Uprising in the POlish Ghetto took heavy Nazi casualties as well and they learned that armed men do not go quietly to concentration camps

 

 

The only thing the uprising did was save the Germain's taking as many to the camps as they killed them in the ghetto instead.

 

 

 

 

The belorussians jews also were armed and worked with Russian partisans to attack the Nazis in guerilla attacks.

Lots of civilians fought the Russians i don't see what difference the fact that some were Jews has anything to do with it.

[Catweazle]

LockStock, in view of developements in the USA, would you revise your earlier predictions ?

 

When Willpoon wrote: "surely the president will seriously think about changing the gun laws ."

No, he won't. Here's two articles on why he won't.

 

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

 

and

 

Why Gun control in the US is a myth

 

Then:

　

 

 

 

Err... that's actually a myth. And a contrived one at that.

 

This is just one of a number of factual corrections offered by FACT CHECK.ORG on the lie that "Obama's coming for our guns!" when in fact, he isn't - in fact, Obama has been a far more gun-friendly legislator (as both Senator and President) than George W Bush ever was.

　

And when I wrote: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we'll see what he does."

You replied:

Well seeing as we've disproved your initial point, and proved that he has stated publicly, repeatedly, that he has no intention of taking anyone's guns, I think we can conclude that that pudding is merely another scare story punted by the paranoid.

[Dr_Scholl]

Nevermind Obama, look at what Cuomo is doing in New York, his speech reminded me of that famous Adolf HItler speech. Scary!

What's funny about New York is they rushed the legislation through so fast, they forgot to exempt law enforcement. And since most police departments in the state use 15 round magazines (the new limit is 7), they're gonna have to turn them all in.

 

Like I said before most Americans support the tighter background checks, it's the registration that they don't like, also the fact the AWB limits cosmetics and not the function of a riffle. How it a semi auto hunting riffle any more of a risk than a Ar-15.

 

The American shooting community are not a spineless "I'm alright jack" kind of group so I doubt this will get through

 

A new AWB is not going to get through Congress. Even the biggest, most vocal gun control supporters have said this, including Joe Biden himself. Now they're lowering their expectations and focusing instead on high capacity magazines (anything that holds over 10 rounds) and universal background checks. A ban on high cap mags would probably be easier to pass than an AWB, but even that's probably unlikely.

 

Personally, I have no problem with universal background checks. But I DO NOT support any kind of AWB or magazine ban.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Dr_Scholl

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

LockStock, in view of developements in the USA, would you revise your earlier predictions ?

 

When Willpoon wrote: "surely the president will seriously think about changing the gun laws ."

 

 

Then:

　

And when I wrote: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we'll see what he does."

You replied:

 

Will I revise my earlier predictions? No. Nothing has changed since I wrote that, so why should I?.

 

And to be fair, you're being disingenuous in that you're attempting to conflate the weak myth of "Obama's gonna take your guns away!" (the now debunked stock paranoid claim by those who simply don't do their homework and yell the first knee-jerk thing that comes into their head), with Obama making judicious use of an Executive Order to reintroduce gun control measures which both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton used to address certain type of assault-style weapons and magazines which have no place in a civilian setting, as highlighted by their use in umpteen mass killings in the US.

 

So what's to re-evaluate or revise?

Edited January 19, 2013 by Lock Stock & Barrel

[Catweazle]

Obama making judicious use of an Executive Order to reintroduce gun control measures which both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton used to address certain type of assault-style weapons and magazines which have no place in a civilian setting, as highlighted by their use in umpteen mass killings in the US.

 

So what's to re-evaluate or revise?

 

So you agree with his actions to restrict "certain type of assault-style weapons and magazines" ? Despite your earlier protests that he wouldn't do so ?

 

You support him if he does, or if he doesn't. What a strange argument.

 

I'm not sure how to argue with a man who supports both sides.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

So you agree with his actions to restrict "certain type of assault-style weapons and magazines" ? Despite your earlier protests that he wouldn't do so ?

 

You support him if he does, or if he doesn't. What a strange argument.

 

I'm not sure how to argue with a man who supports both sides.

 

Sorry, Catweazle, but that doesn't surprise me. Allow me to share a quote with you:

 

 

"The difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people - and this is true whether or not they are well-educated - is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations-in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward."

 

by Neal Stephenson, in 'Diamond Age'.

 

In short, if you can't see that, historically, US presidents have routinely done nothing about what types of weapons are available to the general public (e.g. assault-style weapons and extended magazines), regardless of how many massacres and mass shootings occur every year; and ditto, done nothing about background checks, or whether people with mental disorders are allowed to stockpile arsenals; and if you're still asking yourself why Obama - after the Sandy Hook school shooting finally said "enough is enough", whilst at the same time not seeking a complete gun ban, then all I can say is that you struggle with subtlety.

 

Anyone looking for a black-n-white, cut-n-dried solution here is deluded. Likewise, anyone claiming "Obama wants to take away our guns!" is just too lazy to do their homework and fact-check their knee-jerk reaction, as all the factual evidence indicates that the oppose is the case.

[Catweazle]

if you're still asking yourself why Obama - after the Sandy Hook school shooting finally said "enough is enough", whilst at the same time not seeking a complete gun ban, then all I can say is that you struggle with subtlety.

 

I don't ask myself that at all, in fact I wrote at the beginning of this thread that I thought he would impose restrictions. It was you that insisted that there would be no changes and it's you that has been proven wrong. Sadly you can't admit to that, so you resort to very cleverly worded "smoke and mirrors" distraction instead.

 

I'm impressed by your wordcraft, you'd make a successful politician, but I still remain confused by the "sublety" of you appearing to support both sides. Perhaps that's why I'll never be in politics myself.

 

In simple words, for simple folk like me, would you like to revise your prediction that Obama will not make any changes to the law now that he has announced that he will do ?

 

EDIT to add:

 

Let me return the favour and share a quote with you. Roosevelt.

 

"the failure to nail current jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly."

Edited January 20, 2013 by Catweazle

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

I don't ask myself that at all, in fact I wrote at the beginning of this thread that I thought he would impose restrictions. It was you that insisted that there would be no changes and it's you that has been proven wrong. Sadly you can't admit to that, so you resort to very cleverly worded "smoke and mirrors" distraction instead.

 

I'm impressed by your wordcraft, you'd make a successful politician, but I still remain confused by the "sublety" of you appearing to support both sides. Perhaps that's why I'll never be in politics myself.

 

In simple words, for simple folk like me, would you like to revise your prediction that Obama will not make any changes to the law now that he has announced that he will do ?

 

EDIT to add:

 

Let me return the favour and share a quote with you. Roosevelt.

 

"the failure to nail current jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly."

 

There's nothing smoke and mirrors about getting you to cite impartial and credible sources to support your position (such as it is) instead of mere offering "in my opinion..."

[BerettaEELL]

In simple words, for simple folk like me, would you like to revise your prediction that Obama will not make any changes to the law now that he has announced that he will do ?

 

EDIT to add:

 

 

 

It is not as easy as Obama bringing in change, his hands are tied by the House of Representatives or the Senate passing any firearms restrictions. The big issue with America is that they still live by the Constitution:-

 

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep their own weapons apart from state-run arsenals.

 

In Britain we have a Bill of Rights,

 

the English Bill of Rights 1689 states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence". The difference here is that we have allowed tighter controls on firearms as a result of allowing the Government pass whatever laws they have wanted. UK gun control is not a recent thing, look back to the early 20th Century. The government, fearful of a workers rebellion, pushed through the Firearms Act of 1920. The government falsely told the public that gun crimes were rapidly increasing, and hid the law’s true motive (political control) from the public, presenting the law as a mere anti-crime measure.

 

The issue with America is that a lot of the population who are disgusted by the wave of school massacres want tighter controls, however, the men and women in government who are being paid by the NRA etc will not pass the laws because of the outdated 1787 constitution (that is what they are being told to give as the reason for resisting change).

Edited January 31, 2013 by BerettaEELL

[JonathanL]

It is not as easy as Obama bringing in change, his hands are tied by the House of Representatives or the Senate passing any firearms restrictions. The big issue with America is that they still live by the Constitution:-

 

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep their own weapons apart from state-run arsenals.

 

In Britain we have a Bill of Rights,

 

the English Bill of Rights 1689 states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence". The difference here is that we have allowed tighter controls on firearms as a result of allowing the Government pass whatever laws they have wanted. UK gun control is not a recent thing, look back to the early 20th Century. The government, fearful of a workers rebellion, pushed through the Firearms Act of 1920. The government falsely told the public that gun crimes were rapidly increasing, and hid the law’s true motive (political control) from the public, presenting the law as a mere anti-crime measure.

 

The issue with America is that a lot of the population who are disgusted by the wave of school massacres want tighter controls, however, the men and women in government who are being paid by the NRA etc will not pass the laws because of the outdated 1787 constitution (that is what they are being told to give as the reason for resisting change).

 

That bit simply isn't true. They won't pass these laws because they will be voted out next time. They also won't pass them because they won't do any good as people wouldn't surrender their guns and they can't take them because they aren't registered. Even if they could take them they wouldn't try as American gun owners take the Second Amendment very, very seriously. They will shoot back, quite simply. Also, who are they going to employ to take them? Many cops are gun owners and so are many military personnel and neither of those groups are going to want to be involved. They'll shoot the politicians first.

 

The politicians who are pushing this are doing precisely when they accuse the NRA of doing; exploiting a political situation to further their own aganda. The proposed so called 'ban' on assault weapons is nothing of the sort and no one has even proposed that firearms should be physically removed from anyone. It's just a feel good proposal which would not have changed any of the mass-shootings the US has seen. It's a 'something must be done at any cost' reaction, rather than a reaction which would actually work.

 

The USA should be addressing it's awful mental health arrangements - especially in regards children and adolescents - but that would involve some actual thinking about really hard questions and the spending of a vast amount of money so it will never happen. It's far easier just to fudge the issue by pretending to do something, rather than actually doing anything.

 

J.

[mossy835]

say one thing for the yanks, they stick up for there gun laws.

[BerettaEELL]

 

 

That bit simply isn't true. They won't pass these laws because they will be voted out next time. They also won't pass them because they won't do any good as people wouldn't surrender their guns and they can't take them because they aren't registered. Even if they could take them they wouldn't try as American gun owners take the Second Amendment very, very seriously. They will shoot back, quite simply. Also, who are they going to employ to take them? Many cops are gun owners and so are many military personnel and neither of those groups are going to want to be involved. They'll shoot the politicians first.

 

The politicians who are pushing this are doing precisely when they accuse the NRA of doing; exploiting a political situation to further their own aganda. The proposed so called 'ban' on assault weapons is nothing of the sort and no one has even proposed that firearms should be physically removed from anyone. It's just a feel good proposal which would not have changed any of the mass-shootings the US has seen. It's a 'something must be done at any cost' reaction, rather than a reaction which would actually work.

 

The USA should be addressing it's awful mental health arrangements - especially in regards children and adolescents - but that would involve some actual thinking about really hard questions and the spending of a vast amount of money so it will never happen. It's far easier just

 

J.

 

Not rocket science to say Obama won't get in next time. My statement is FACT, you should read and watch the news. What mental health arrangements, they dont have any unless you are wealthy, that's why loopy grandpa sits on the veranda cuddling his sawn off. I did not mention assault weapons, I just stated that the US use the 2nd to justify gun ownership and that the UK built laws on top of the Bill of Rights, some more dubious than others.

 

The NRA advise is to uphold every letter of the Second Amendment. The President cannot pass Laws. UK has strong gun laws. Don't argue against Fact, come up with some ideas as to how the US can move forward, then sit back and realise that with the current mind set they cannot. Banning Assault weapons is like hitting an elephant with a fly-swat, the problem is way bigger than assault weapons.

Edited January 31, 2013 by BerettaEELL

[Ears]

don't think it will make any difference. it done us no good at all.