America's mass shooting statistics...

[Scully]

this latest shooting and another recently was carried out by someone who emigrated from the uk at an early age, makes you wonder

[bostonmick]

Are you sure you didnt mean to log on to mumsnet ? Since when have UK gunlaws "worked" ? Who have they "worked" for. I bet there would have been a major (ish) outcry here if the gun law we have now was proposed and implemented at the outset....... as the old analogy goes , if you wanna boil a frog alive quietly drop it in a pan of cold water and slowly turn the heat up. The americans will not accept any change to their gunlaws I'd bet

I never claimed they worked it was the president of America who said that in a speech on the subject.I do however think our gun laws work very well but some resent any form of control and to my mind they are the ones who should not be allowed any at all.atb

[bostonmick]

You're right, no parent should have to bury their child, but emotive soundbites such as that do absolutely nothing to address the issue.

There is a very good chance that the parents of those children killed are in fact firearms owners themselves. It would be interesting to learn what the parents of those children do in fact think should happen regarding firearms legislation in the USA. I know of none whom have been asked.

As I mentioned elsewhere, following the very recent killing of the tv journalist and her cameraman, the fiancé was asked by British news reporters if they themselves owned firearms, to which he answered yes. He made it clear he saw no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms ( the murdered womans father was sat next to him nodding in agreement as far as I recall ) but that mental health checks should be considered.

No doubt some do own firearms and maybe they use them for sporting purposes. Not to clear the town of its children.I am sorry you think it nothing more than Emotive soundbites but I dare say it is very Emotive for some of those parents at the moment. Own a gun by all means and own a gun to use for the purpose it was made for sporting guns for sporting purposes. No private citizen needs a military type arsenal. America has got a problem with guns I don't know the answer and it's not our place or business to say what should be done.

And the reporters it's no surprise they are owners of firearms they are American after all.

Edited October 4, 2015 by bostonmick

[tx4cabbie]

No need to own self loading centrefire military rifles, no sporting need at all. I shoot pistol, I'll not support your owning those evil black rifles.......................

No need to own pistols, only cowboy wannabes need pistols, I shoot clays/deer/paper, I'll not support your owning those evil concealable pistols.

 

Can shoot laser clays, trap or poison deer/bunnies, use airguns to put holes in paper, there's no NEED to own firearms, according to those who oppose their ownership. On the other hand, why shouldn't a law abiding person, with no mental health issues, have anything from a muzzle loading shotgun to an L1a1 to a 1911 to a gimpy? As long as it was used safely, and kept safely away from those who would misuse them. If you're ok to own firearms, does it matter what firearms you own?

 

The septics contend, and I'm not entirely sure they're wrong, that the second amendment is not about hunting or targets etc, it's about being able to pull your elected servants up, wag your finger, and say "no, that's not on", when they suggest that Jews/blacks/freemasons/gingers/Welshmen/communists/lefthandedpeople should be burnt on Sunday afternoons.

Governments have modern weapons, and if the populace is restricted to sub 12 ft/lb springers and single barrel. 410s, then they don't have much chance of standing against national socialists or assad or pol pot or whoever. Our American brethren won't have that issue.

[subsonicnat]

Governments have modern weapons, and if the populace is restricted to sub 12 ft/lb springers and single barrel. 410s, then they don't have much chance of standing against national socialists or assad or pol pot or whoever. Our American brethren won't have that issue

 

I Hope this Last sentence is not advocating insurection by law abiding citizens of America or the UK.

As it was thoughts like that,,, That got the Goverment Here to issue Licences after the First World War. And if that is what you were implying, I Hope your FEO or Goverment Bodies Do Not Read Your Post..

[Danger-Mouse]

This has already been done to death through various court cases where the validity of the 2nd Amendment as pertinent to today was tested, but as it forms part of the Constitution which is relevant for eternity, then the 2nd Amendment stands for all time also.

There are no clauses to the 'right to bear arms'. It is what it is.

 

The 2nd Amendment was a change to the original constitution. Just as the 18th Amendment, better known as the Volstead Act, or prohibition if you prefer was a change to the original constitution. The 18th Amendment was then repealed by the 21st Amendment. It`s a simple fact that the consitution has been changed numerous times, in fact 27 in total. That`s not to say it`s an easy thing to do but the fact remains it could be changed.

[Rewulf]

 

I Hope this Last sentence is not advocating insurection by law abiding citizens of America or the UK.

As it was thoughts like that,,, That got the Goverment Here to issue Licences after the First World War. And if that is what you were implying, I Hope your FEO or Goverment Bodies Do Not Read Your Post..

 

Hold your horses there subsonic !

The US constitution is very clear about this.

 

2: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.

 

This was included principly because the first thing the British tried to do when revolution became inevitable,was to disarm the colonists.

The 2nd amendment is there to try to make sure that this could not happen again..ever.

 

No one is saying that having a legally held firearm makes you an anarchist,either here or in the US.

[tx4cabbie]

Of course I'm not advocating insurrection, in the US or here, we may be represented by a VERY mixed bag, running the full spectrum from hero to absolute dishonest muppet, but there's a reason millions of folk are trying to get here, and part of that is if you don't like the way things are going here, you mostly don't throw your toys from the pram and grab an ak, you follow the democratic process.

 

Rule by him with the biggest stick was tried about 70 years ago, not far from here, and didn't go down too well. It's still tried elsewhere in the world, with varying degrees of success, and a lot of those on the "smaller or no stick" side wish they'd hung onto their sticks. Most of the nastier bits of history are prefaced by people having their sticks taken away - if your government doesn't trust you with arms, they may just be a leftwing nanny state, or actually have nefarious intentions, but it's a bit late if you find out, once your toys have been melted down, that you jumped on the wrong horse. That's the Americans point.

 

In the 20's, the tory government apparently had a plan to hand out surplus rifles to conservative party members, to help put down by force the revolution they feared our workforce would, having seen the Russians do it, start soon. Never happened, obviously, but food for thought.

 

My guns are for busting clays, and helping me keep pigeons and bunnies still whilst I prepare them, not for bothering our elected representatives. I'd be somewhat put out if either my feo or the government thought they had any business pulling me up over innocuous comments on a forum - I've a clean record, am an atheist and teetotaller, don't have any political affiliation, and keep my nose clean. Unless I advocate racial, religious, or similar hatred (not my way), my opinions should be free of censorship

Edited October 4, 2015 by tx4cabbie

[Scully]

 

The 2nd Amendment was a change to the original constitution. Just as the 18th Amendment, better known as the Volstead Act, or prohibition if you prefer was a change to the original constitution. The 18th Amendment was then repealed by the 21st Amendment. It`s a simple fact that the consitution has been changed numerous times, in fact 27 in total. That`s not to say it`s an easy thing to do but the fact remains it could be changed.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. It has however, been thoroughly tried through the courts to claim that the right to bear arms applied to contemporary firearms.

You may be right when you say 'it could be changed', but I doubt the will is there..... yet. That may change but many see even registration as the start of the slippery slope towards state confiscation.

[bostonmick]

if a terrorist shoots people on a beach it is a tragedy however if a citizen of the us enters a school and kills people it is his right to bear arms in law and cannot be interfered with..just a thought but how many more killings should it take before things have to be changed,or should it go on for ever.

[Scully]

No doubt some do own firearms and maybe they use them for sporting purposes. Not to clear the town of its children.I am sorry you think it nothing more than Emotive soundbites but I dare say it is very Emotive for some of those parents at the moment. Own a gun by all means and own a gun to use for the purpose it was made for sporting guns for sporting purposes. No private citizen needs a military type arsenal. America has got a problem with guns I don't know the answer and it's not our place or business to say what should be done.

And the reporters it's no surprise they are owners of firearms they are American after all.

I too am in no doubt some of those parents own firearms for sporting purposes, and also in no doubt, that given it's America, there is a very good chance some of them also own firearms for personal protection whether they be handguns or military spec' rifles.

I am also in no doubt that 'to clear the town of its children' has never entered their heads, but what do you think sounding like a representative of the Snowdrop Campaign does to further this debate?

Did you spout this meaningless soundbite following the shootings by Derek Bird? A lot of parents had to bury their children following this, as did a lot of children have cause to bury their parents. Or like others on here, do you just reserve your outrage and prejudice for firearms you disapprove of?

'No private citizen needs a military type arsenal'. You're probably right, no one does need a military type arsenal, but in America they are allowed by law to have them. But equally we don't need the firearms we are allowed by law to have in this country.

American people and American society is going through some very serious problems. Some of its people are for some reason turning to mass murder to express their dissatisfaction with American society, and in a society where it is estimated there are around 310 million firearms in circulation it is obvious the availability of firearms will play it's part but the answer lies elsewhere.

Blaming the tool is not only blinkered but about as meaningful as blaming cars for the popularity of their use as bombs by the IRA.

[Danger-Mouse]

Fair enough, I stand corrected. It has however, been thoroughly tried through the courts to claim that the right to bear arms applied to contemporary firearms.

You may be right when you say 'it could be changed', but I doubt the will is there..... yet. That may change but many see even registration as the start of the slippery slope towards state confiscation.

 

I quite agree and tbh it may never happen. It`s an enormously complicated process. I haven`t fully read into it but I believe every individual state would have to agree to the change. With the political influence the NRA has that seems highly unlikely. I don`t really think anyone is going to try and remove that amendment, it would be political suicide.

[Hamster]

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2015/media/211580/_original/1443814307/1035x1479-GUN-CONTROL_v1.png

[Scully]

if a terrorist shoots people on a beach it is a tragedy however if a citizen of the us enters a school and kills people it is his right to bear arms in law and cannot be interfered with..just a thought but how many more killings should it take before things have to be changed,or should it go on for ever.

Aren't both acts tragic acts of terrorism? In response to the former the response was to introduce and increase the number of armed guards in tourist resorts. It has already been seriously mooted that American schools introduce armed guards.

[spanj]

Of course I'm not advocating insurrection, in the US or here, we may be represented by a VERY mixed bag, running the full spectrum from hero to absolute dishonest muppet, but there's a reason millions of folk are trying to get here, and part of that is if you don't like the way things are going here, you mostly don't throw your toys from the pram and grab an ak, you follow the democratic process.

 

Rule by him with the biggest stick was tried about 70 years ago, not far from here, and didn't go down too well. It's still tried elsewhere in the world, with varying degrees of success, and a lot of those on the "smaller or no stick" side wish they'd hung onto their sticks. Most of the nastier bits of history are prefaced by people having their sticks taken away - if you're government doesn't trust you with arms, they may just be a leftwing nanny state, or actually have nefarious intentions, but it's a bit late if you find out, once your toys have been melted down, that you jumped on the wrong horse. That's the Americans point.

 

In the 20's, the tory government apparently had a plan to hand out surplus rifles to conservative party members, to help put down by force the revolution they feared our workforce would, having seen the Russians do it, start soon. Never happened, obviously, but food for thought.

 

My guns are for busting clays, and helping me keep pigeons and bunnies still whilst I prepare them, not for bothering our elected representatives. I'd be somewhat put out if either my feo or the government thought they had any business pulling me up over innocuous comments on a forum - I've a clean record, am an atheist and teetotaller, don't have any political affiliation, and keep my nose clean. Unless I advocate racial, religious, or similar hatred (not my way), my opinions should be free of censorship

excellent post

[bostonmick]

i condemn all acts of this type.my belief is that our current laws are doing a lot to try and keep these instances to an absolute minimum of course there is no system that will stop it 100%.but with these killings happening on a near monthly basis even you with your anti establishment views must admit it cannot become an accepted thing to keep an outdated attitude for much longer.i also have no prejudice against any gun i have like everyone a preference.your point about they are allowed types of weapons by law is valid however they are not allowed to use them to commit these type of crimes.it would seem that some are of the opinion that the right of the gunman to own any kind of gun overrides the right of others to a life.if they removed some of the rights to certain weapons from the masses and it saved just one life then in my eyes it would be worth it.history shows that America has always been a violent society maybe the right to bear arms played a part in that.

[bostonmick]

Aren't both acts tragic acts of terrorism? In response to the former the response was to introduce and increase the number of armed guards in tourist resorts. It has already been seriously mooted that American schools introduce armed guards.

 

they are indeed both equally acts of terror but it seems that while the Taliban and is should be stopped and stripped of weapons the citizens of the us committing these acts should not be hindered in any way from getting anything they desire.and yes i read that some schools were looking at having armed security and that was a reasonable precaution as far as i can see,however another school principal said he felt if the students had been armed themselves they would have been able to defend themselves,would that be a good thing as the last few school killings have been done by students.i for one would not feel safe or relaxed laying by a pool or on a beach with armed guards roaming,this is indeed becoming a sad world.

[tx4cabbie]

I totally agree with your condemnation of these atrocities, if these scum are having a bad time,join a discussion group, a protest group or political party, get therapy, buy a bottle of scotch and self medicate, anything but taking a load of innocent lives then suicide by police.

 

It just strikes me that it's too late, in a nation of more than 300,000,000 mainly unregistered guns, to ban or restrict "some" of them. Dunblane showed us what a poxy piece of filth can do with handguns, so banning "assault rifles " won't do the job, and if you banned assault rifles there'd still be examples popping up for many years. There are many more pistols out there, in cupboards, draws, on dressing tables, available for stealing if you can't buy one.

Gun availability is just too prevalent for legislation to work. The only way to really guard against these things in the states is for responsible members of the population to have a proportionate response. Burst into a school now,and you'll pass a sign which announces that it's a gun free zone, so you have free reign to kill and terrorise knowing no-one will oppose you. Since the vast majority of the states permitted concealed carry, crime has gone down quite a bit, as you never know whether the girl you jump out at will double tap you in the head. Surely having staff members trained and willing to protect their students would have a similar effect, has to be more effective than just hoping that a disgruntled ex-student won't attack

[Rewulf]

i condemn all acts of this type.my belief is that our current laws are doing a lot to try and keep these instances to an absolute minimum of course there is no system that will stop it 100%.but with these killings happening on a near monthly basis even you with your anti establishment views must admit it cannot become an accepted thing to keep an outdated attitude for much longer.i also have no prejudice against any gun i have like everyone a preference.your point about they are allowed types of weapons by law is valid however they are not allowed to use them to commit these type of crimes.it would seem that some are of the opinion that the right of the gunman to own any kind of gun overrides the right of others to a life.if they removed some of the rights to certain weapons from the masses and it saved just one life then in my eyes it would be worth it.history shows that America has always been a violent society maybe the right to bear arms played a part in that.

 

Huh!?

It makes no difference if the perpetrator of these acts has a fully automatic assault rifle or a bolt action .22lr

If someone goes over the edge and decides to commit acts of murder there isnt a lot you can do about it.

If they have no access to firearms at all,a car,knife,gallon of petrol or a pointy stick are all deadly weapons with a deranged mind behind them.

To say that banning military type weapons in the US would stop nutters going on killing sprees is about as sensible as when some states banned ' high' capacity magazines.

If they can only buy 10 rnd mags,they can either carry more mags or buy them out in another state,the person planning the atrocity would hardly be bothered about this law.

Its been said time and time again on this forum,you cant regulate against insanity , temporary or otherwise.

[bostonmick]

 

Huh!?

It makes no difference if the perpetrator of these acts has a fully automatic assault rifle or a bolt action .22lr

If someone goes over the edge and decides to commit acts of murder there isnt a lot you can do about it.

If they have no access to firearms at all,a car,knife,gallon of petrol or a pointy stick are all deadly weapons with a deranged mind behind them.

To say that banning military type weapons in the US would stop nutters going on killing sprees is about as sensible as when some states banned ' high' capacity magazines.

If they can only buy 10 rnd mags,they can either carry more mags or buy them out in another state,the person planning the atrocity would hardly be bothered about this law.

Its been said time and time again on this forum,you cant regulate against insanity , temporary or otherwise.

So in your view then there is only two options either things left as they are and just accept hundreds more killings of this type or a total ban on all guns.If you read my posts properly you'll have seen I stated I have no answers to the problem they have and also that no system is 100%. I do find it increasingly more difficult to understand how some can defend these actions by constantly quoting the constitution. Personally I could not care less what guns they are allowed in the US.However I do object to how events in that country influence our government and I think will ultimately have an effect on our firearms licensing and not to our good.

[955i]

yep, probably dope smokers and crackheads.

Stupid generalisation

[Rewulf]

So in your view then there is only two options either things left as they are and just accept hundreds more killings of this type or a total ban on all guns. Im pretty certain I said no such thing ! You were asking why civilians were allowed military grade firearms. If you read my posts properly (Id read mine again if I were you ) you'll have seen I stated I have no answers to the problem they have and also that no system is 100%. I do find it increasingly more difficult to understand how some can defend these actions by constantly quoting the constitution. They quote the constitution because that is what their society and success is based on. Personally I could not care less what guns they are allowed in the US.However I do object to how events in that country influence our government and I think will ultimately have an effect on our firearms licensing and not to our good.

 

See I disagree there,if shootings in the US with legally held firearms had any bearing on UK firearms legislation,we wouldnt have private firearm ownership today in this country.

The likes of Ryan and Hamilton considerably curtailed our ability to possess firearms.

Im very surprised Birds actions didnt take semi auto .22 rifles out of circulation to be honest.

Can you see the difference ?

We have a mass shooting with a legally held firearm ,someone usually with hindsight ,shouldnt have had them in the first place, and we lose something.

In the US ,they can have a mass shooting every month and they lose nothing.

Why ?

Because the gun lobby over there has a voice,and its a powerful voice,with a 2nd amendment to back it up with law.

Also ,as Ive already said,the general population doesnt like having its constitution messed about with,they believe (and probably quite rightly) its just a precursor to having other civil liberties taken away.

I think the US will accept a lot more mass shootings with legally held firearms ,they most certainly will accept as many gangland style killings (never seems to be much of a fuss when a couple of drug lords set to with AK s)

The answer is not to limit magazine capacity or ban ARs,a tighter registration policy is already underway,and should help.

Licencing brings problems with the 2nd,tighter security at schools ect is pretty much already in place.

Some states have armed and trained teachers,I wonder if these schools and universities get hit?

At the end of the day,its what the American people will accept,not what their government imposes on them.

Democracy in action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the answer is ?

[bostonmick]

 

See I disagree there,if shootings in the US with legally held firearms had any bearing on UK firearms legislation,we wouldnt have private firearm ownership today in this country.

The likes of Ryan and Hamilton considerably curtailed our ability to possess firearms.

Im very surprised Birds actions didnt take semi auto .22 rifles out of circulation to be honest.

Can you see the difference ?

We have a mass shooting with a legally held firearm ,someone usually with hindsight ,shouldnt have had them in the first place, and we lose something.

In the US ,they can have a mass shooting every month and they lose nothing.

Why ?

Because the gun lobby over there has a voice,and its a powerful voice,with a 2nd amendment to back it up with law.

Also ,as Ive already said,the general population doesnt like having its constitution messed about with,they believe (and probably quite rightly) its just a precursor to having other civil liberties taken away.

I think the US will accept a lot more mass shootings with legally held firearms ,they most certainly will accept as many gangland style killings (never seems to be much of a fuss when a couple of drug lords set to with AK s)

The answer is not to limit magazine capacity or ban ARs,a tighter registration policy is already underway,and should help.

Licencing brings problems with the 2nd,tighter security at schools ect is pretty much already in place.

Some states have armed and trained teachers,I wonder if these schools and universities get hit?

At the end of the day,its what the American people will accept,not what their government imposes on them.

Democracy in action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the answer is ?

Again I have never said ban all military style weapons from private ownership I said I could see no reason why anyone would need a arsenal of military weapons.If a person can show genuine need for a gun of the type that soldiers need in a war zone then give it to them.please don't say self defence as most attacks that would require you to defend yourself are at close quarters.If you consider a country that has some thirty thousand deaths a year by firearms a success then I would say you need to think again.The right to bear arms was written in the days of single shot guns muzzle loaders not rapid fire guns of today and the people who held the guns in those days were armed to defend their country and feed their family during the hard times that they lived in.I am sure when the next of these killings happens we will have the same brave views on here that it is the killers right to have whatever he desires and use it for whatever he see's as a fit purpose because of the constitution. God bless America.

 

 

As for the gangland drug killings well I can't say anything against that in my view the more of them that kill each other the better they are one scurge we don't need.

Edited October 5, 2015 by bostonmick

[Vince Green]

I cannot help but hold a mental picture of anyone who would hoard an arsenal of 'Ranbo' guns. The world is full of people with all sorts of issues in their lives, its crazy to defend their right to own something so destructive.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Vince Green

[brett1985]

With regards to the point that has been put across several times about the guns that were available at the time of writing of the second amendment,

it would be wise to look at that from a more logical stand point.

 

yes, the majority of guns were flintlocks etc, but at that time the government were also using approximately the same weapons. so at that point it would have been a fair fight, no?

 

are you really telling me that given todays guns that are used by the armed forces, that it still be a fair fight if the 'well regulated militia' was only armed with flintlocks as that was what was supposedly intended at the time of writing of the second amendment?

 

the second amendment is there to give the American citizens the ability to be able to fight a tyrannical government. in its purest form, as the governments technology has advanced, the second amendment has afforded general citizens the right to bare arms and defend themselves with equal force.

 

the second amendment was written to be progressive through the times, not just to be relevant at the time of writing.

it also has nothing to do with sporting shooting and hunting.

Edited October 5, 2015 by brett1985