American gun laws

[BerettaEELL]

From what I have read, the changes will have to come from the bottom up, state by state. Obama would never get any laws through the House of Representatives as most of them are Republican and have ties to the NRA. The UK gun laws are too tight, however I do feel safer knowing that due to the restrictions in place we can all sleep safely in our beds, furthermore our children can go to school without being confronted by another Thomas Hamilton.

 

[Scully]

The UK gun laws are too tight, however I do feel safer knowing that due to the restrictions in place we can all sleep safely in our beds, furthermore our children can go to school without being confronted by another Thomas Hamilton.

Is this 'tongue in cheek',or are you being serious?

[JonathanL]

Sorry, Israel arms its teachers for a completely different reason - if you've every been to the Israeli town of Beersheba near the Gaza border, you'd know why - and you cannot seriously attempt to conflate the US and Israel in this manner.

 

Also, if weapons were allowed into classrooms, you also make it easy for the day, God forbid, when a teacher "has a bad day" and decides to go postal - and you've just given him/her the means to do it.

 

 

 

Correct - why would the want to be? As bad and as seemingly regular as these shootings are, they are still (in the grand scheme of things) an aberration and not the norm. You might as well arm all UK citizens on the hypothetical basis that we may, one day, be invaded by persons hitherto unknown. 99.9999'% of teachers in the US will never be faced with this situation.

 

 

 

 

Would they [i.e. a lot of teachers would prefer to be armed in the classroom]? Sure about that? Do you have any empirical evidence whatsoever with which to support that claim? I suspect not.

 

True enough the lad took his mother's legally obtained, owned and registered weapons for his killing spree - published figures prove that the overwhelming majority on gun-related killings in the US are the result of legally-owned weapons, and not illegally acquired/possessed guns.

 

Why wouldn't they? There is nothing to suggest that the numbers of teachers who have carry permits isn't representative of the population as a whole.

 

As someone else had said; if none want to then employ armed guards.

 

All mass shootings, every single one of them, happen in places where the shooter can not be stopped until he decides to stop or the police arrive and stop him. That is an unavoidable, categorical, fact.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Whether or not it would lessen this kind of tragedy, you have to admit that if you live in a society where you need armed guards in schools, something's going wrong!

 

This is very true but somewhat beside the pont. Armed guards will stop school shootings happening while the Americans try to put theirt society right.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Changes to US law might make a difference to the lone lunatic who snaps and murders before suicide. Maybe the loon would just top himself if he didn't have instant access to firearms. It won't make a jot of difference to someone who plans such an outrage.

 

One thing is for sure, Obama wants to disarm the population so he will take this opportunity. A disarmed polulation is easier to control and that will be foremost in his mind with economic collapse a possibility.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. He has said virtually nothing on the subject and hasn't tried to do anything of that nature.

 

Personally, I don't think he will do anything. He isn't stupid and can see that there isn't any easy fix. Banning any firearms in the USA is a total non-starter. If the government tries to take firearms away from its citizens the country will explode into civil war. Moreover, who will he get to do it. If anyone thinks that the US police or military are going to start taking private property, let alone constitutionally protected private property, from US citizens then they are living a fantasy.

 

I don't know what the answer is, althogh secure storage laws would be a start, but it isn't banning guns.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Sincerely, thank you. Obama has only yesterday made comments, which you've seen in the press, about "regardless of politics" and "need for change" etc. These words are what is expected from a sitting president, along with "our hearts are broken..." etc. I'd be willing to bet that no change will come as a result of this latest shooting - and the federal gun ban on assault weapons was introduced by a previous president (Clinton) and yet Obama let them lapse and expire.

 

Gun control in the US is a myth. There's no way round the 2nd Amendment - unless the US Congress votes and legislates otherwise with an amendment to the 2nd Amendment, it won't happen, as the majority of them (senators and congressmen) are in the paid pocket of the gun lobbies.

 

I don't belive that last part. I doubt they are in the pay of anyone for the simple reason that the firearmsindustry is tiny. This isn't big tobacco with billions to waste, gun makers are really not much more than a cottage industry.

 

It won't happen because the majority of law makers actually have some respect for the US consitution. They know that the second amendment is a very good thing in that it protects the population from abusive government or potential foreign invaders.

 

J,

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Why wouldn't they? There is nothing to suggest that the numbers of teachers who have carry permits isn't representative of the population as a whole.

 

Now you're just guessing. When you can present anything to support your opinions, please produce it.

 

As someone else had said; if none want to then employ armed guards.

 

That response tells us clearly that you've not been following this thread - that point's already been covered. Asked and answered.

 

All mass shootings, every single one of them, happen in places where the shooter can not be stopped until he decides to stop or the police arrive and stop him. That is an unavoidable, categorical, fact.

 

J.

 

Again, you're just surmising. Virginia Tech had armed guards, but like most rent-a--cops, they don't see siege combat as in their job spec and are quite happy to leave it to the professionals to clear up.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

I don't belive that last part. I doubt they are in the pay of anyone for the simple reason that the firearms industry is tiny.

 

Feel free to believe what you like mate - you're wrong, but feel free anyway. Most Senators and Congressmen, certainly in the southern states, couldn't get elected were it not for donations made by the NRA and the other various arms manufacturers (whose manufacturing plants are in their states).

 

And as for the assertion, "... for the simple reason that the firearms industry is tiny", you really have not done your homework here - a simple Google will give you precisely how much the US firearms industry is worth. America's arms budget is larger than that of the next 26 countries combined.

 

 

 

This isn't big tobacco with billions to waste, [uS] gun makers are really not much more than a cottage industry.

 

Oy vay...

 

It won't happen because the majority of law makers actually have some respect for the US consitution. They know that the second amendment is a very good thing in that it protects the population from abusive government or potential foreign invaders.

 

J,

 

Clearly, you've not been following the thread.

[poontang]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, you're just surmising. Virginia Tech had armed guards, but like most rent-a--cops, they don't see siege combat as in their job spec and are quite happy to leave it to the professionals to clear up.

 

I don't think there were armed guards at Virginia Tech.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

I don't think there were armed guards at Virginia Tech.

 

According to a mate who lives near the Tech there, they did, but - on reflection - not enough. Mind you, it would be impossible to have an armed guard in every room or building on any university campus, "just in case" - the bill for that alone would make it cost prohibitive.

[shakari]

I reckon the main reason gun control is unlikely to happen is that a large percentage of the gun owning public would just tell the Government to voetsak (An Afrikaans expression but I'm sure you'll suss out what it means) if they tried to take their guns away.

 

The Americans take their constitution and the freedoms therein very seriously indeed and I'd be astounded if they allowed it to be altered without a hell of a fight...... and I do mean fight.

[spanj]

well how many serious shootings have happened since Dunblane a very small comparison compared to the USA ?? Changing the gun law seems to have worked here, don't get me wrong im a serious gun fanatic being an air rifle to even a cannon ! But enough is enough sometimes and time has shown its worked here so why not over in the USA .

 

Are you for real ? Go check some stats...........

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

This BBC article from July 2012 is pretty much on the money - its title gives the game away:

 

America's gun control impasse

Edited December 16, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel

[shakari]

Gun control hasn't worked anywhere. It didn't work in the UK with the handgun ban and it certainly didn't work in Norway.

 

I appreciate something needs to change but all gun control will achieve is to remove guns and freedoms from the law abiding citizens.

 

If we want to stop these atrocities as we surely do we need to address our respective societies by reintroducing proper/stricter parenting, proper justice including reintroducing the death penalty and cracking down on things like gangs etc and by removing a large amount of violence from TV, movies and computer games.

Edited December 16, 2012 by shakari

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Realistically, anyone with any sense is not advocating a 'gun ban' in the US - the current 2nd Amendment prevents such a move and would stand no chance of getting passed in the House any way, even if they were to seek to amend the 2nd.

 

What the US does suffer from is lax background checks on gun permit applications; further compromised by the fact these are different in each state - there is no uniform methodology in place. Add to that their appalling mental health care system (pretty much out of reach to all but the rich), and you can see that you have two criteria which would help in seeking to prevent guns getting into the hands of out-on-a-porch nutters who then go postal.

 

So it's not 'gun control', per se, it's more of a situation where other things could be done in order to try and prevent the wrong people having access to weapons - but again, I suspect neither of these two things will change, no matter how many wholesale slaughters the American citizenry suffer.

[BerettaEELL]

 

Is this 'tongue in cheek',or are you being serious?

 

Partly tongue in cheek, it is a fact that a legally held pistol could not be used in the uk or an assault rifle for that matter. Do not loose sight of the fact that most of the US massacres were committed using legally held firearms. I could go on for a week discussing how we could ease restrictions in the UK but it will never happen.

 

 

[JonathanL]

Realistically, anyone with any sense is not advocating a 'gun ban' in the US - the current 2nd Amendment prevents such a move and would stand no chance of getting passed in the House any way, even if they were to seek to amend the 2nd.

 

What the US does suffer from is lax background checks on gun permit applications; further compromised by the fact these are different in each state - there is no uniform methodology in place. Add to that their appalling mental health care system (pretty much out of reach to all but the rich), and you can see that you have two criteria which would help in seeking to prevent guns getting into the hands of out-on-a-porch nutters who then go postal.

 

So it's not 'gun control', per se, it's more of a situation where other things could be done in order to try and prevent the wrong people having access to weapons - but again, I suspect neither of these two things will change, no matter how many wholesale slaughters the American citizenry suffer.

 

You have evidence for that, I assume? Even if there is a problem and you subsequently right it, it doesn't prevent private sales between individuals.

 

I agree with pretty much everything else you say there though.

 

J.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

You have evidence for that, I assume? Even if there is a problem and you subsequently right it, it doesn't prevent private sales between individuals.

 

I agree with pretty much everything else you say there though.

 

J.

 

Yes - see this link HERE for stats on the US's poor mental health care record and provision.

 

And see this recent (July 2012 from John's Hopkins) report on lax background checks:

 

Lax Gun Ownership Laws Could Impact Ability of High-Risk Individuals to Purchase Firearms

Edited December 16, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel

[subsonicnat]

The TV stated this morning that there were 300 shootings in America, Every Day: 30 usually die:

Horrific in any body`s language ::

So its not just this incident that is a problem, think how many in a week,,and in a Year:: gob smacking ::

As another post pointed to it working here after Dunblane ,, Not so,,, there are now more reported incidents with pistols , than when they were Legal??... No it only took it off the good guys: AND thats the argument they will put forward in America::

You are legally able to shoot a burglar on you premises, so the good guys all have guns:: To PROTECT:::

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

It's ironic that it took only one failed shoe bomber to put the world in the situation where we now have to remove our shoes at airports and have them scanned ... and yet there have been more than 30 multiple shootings in the US since the Columbine massacre, and yet not one policy to address who should have access to guns.

[Bloke]

 

 

Partly tongue in cheek, it is a fact that a legally held pistol could not be used in the uk or an assault rifle for that matter. Do not loose sight of the fact that most of the US massacres were committed using legally held firearms. I could go on for a week discussing how we could ease restrictions in the UK but it will never happen.

 

Why not? I have, like several others on this site, a .38/.357 magnum 7-shot revolver in "long barrelled revolver" (LBR) form, for competition use, with speed loaders etc. the only thing stopping this from being a revolver in the style of other countries including the USA is a 12" barrel and a stupid piece of wire welded to the frame that extends the overall length to the minimum 60cm. To take the step of removing this and shortening the barrel (less than 5 mins with a hacksaw) is illegal, but if I was going out to commit this type of atrocity, that wouldn't bother me, would it! 7 shots, reload in about 8 seconds max, needed for competition, but that is why (quite rightly) I had to spend some time justifying this to the FEO. My other competition pistol(when it arrives!) is a .22 semi-auto LBP with 15-shot stick mags, again, just 5 mins with a saw to remove bar and shorten the barrel, even keeps the sights on this one!

 

As for assault rifles, many semi- auto .22 rifles can take up to 25 shot magazines, and although smaller calibre, at the close ranges in this instance, could certainly be fatal to children or adults, firing as fast as you could pull the trigger.

 

As far as other guns go, shotguns are the easiest to cut down.

 

The weapons are not the problem, it is when they are put in close proximity to the wrong people!

 

We have to put some faith in the current system at trying to spot potential problems/ problem people, and if we see someone going off the rails, even if they are a friend, we should say something- to them if possible, but if not, to the FEO/police.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

As for the shooter in this latest atrocity, in all likelihood, he himself suffered from some form of mental disorder:

[Gimlet]

Partly tongue in cheek, it is a fact that a legally held pistol could not be used in the uk or an assault rifle for that matter. Do not loose sight of the fact that most of the US massacres were committed using legally held firearms. I could go on for a week discussing how we could ease restrictions in the UK but it will never happen.

 

There are plenty of legally held pistols in the UK that could be used criminally if the holder was so minded. There are exemptions to the handgun ban. The question that needs addressing is why people commit these acts in the first place. Whether they do it with a legal or illegal gun is neither here nor there. School shootings are an American speciality. Copycat crimes almost certainly, but why would anyone copy such a crime? Mental illness is a catch-all get out clause. Something in social democratic societies is producing and allowing to proliferate a diseased branch of its citizenry that acts against nature.

Nutters may well be picking up guns because there are too many to hand, but there are also it seems to me an unnaturally large supply of nutters. We are creating the problem from both ends, we will not solve it from only one.

[JonathanL]

It's ironic that it took only one failed shoe bomber to put the world in the situation where we now have to remove our shoes at airports and have them scanned ... and yet there have been more than 30 multiple shootings in the US since the Columbine massacre, and yet not one policy to address who should have access to guns.

 

Tend to agree but the difference is that wearing shoes isn't constitutionally protected in the USA.

 

J.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Tend to agree but the difference is that wearing shoes isn't constitutionally protected in the USA.

 

J.

 

Perhaps - but the US Constitution only has legally binding dominion in the US, and yet you'd struggle to use any airport in the Western world where this shoe removal scheme isn't in place.