Guns in America: we move onward into a new level of special thinking...

[Saracen]

Valid points - but..

This doesn't justify the gun laws allowing for an entire country to own them. I can understand the authorities having weapons, and thought i dont agree with hunters owning guns, i appreciate your viewpoint, but i don't see how any old tom, dick, or harry should be allowed them same rights. Its - its.. 'unconstitutional'!

But it's not, though. That's part of the problem - the right to bear arms is explictly constitutionally protected.

Remember, the history and deveopment of the US and that of the UK are very different. Even when gun ownership in the UK was far less restricted than now (which is not as long ago as you might think), it was never as culturally embedded as it is in the US, at least in part for the type of reasons briefly mentioned above.

So ... while we might like to be in a different cultural place than we are, we are where we are. Wishing otherwise amounts to "well, I wouldn't start from here".

And where we are is that it's constitutionally protected. And that means that the Supreme Court can, and believe me, WILL strike down any laws a particular government come up with if that government tries to tread on constitutionally protected rights.

It is possible to narrow the field, and impose some restrictions .... such as covering criminal records, or residency requirements.

Also, remember, it's a state v federal thing. US states all have their own governments, and they very jealously guard their areas of "competence" from federal interference by the national government.

It is, if you like, similar to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly getting very uppity if Westminster tries to dictate to them in devolved areas. Westminster would be told to bleep off, and US state governments tell the federal goverment the same thing. Which is why gun laws vary so much from state to state. In some places, getting a concealed-carry permit is pretty easy, and in others, near impossible if you aren't in law enforcement.

[xodianbarr]

But it's not, though. That's part of the problem - the right to bear arms is explictly constitutionally protected.

I know! (hence the wink).

My expression was meant as an irony.

My point is, on the whole Americans want to keep their guns, because they're afraid of not being able to protect themselves against those that intend to do harm. But as long as guns are accessible, The wrong sort are going to keep using them. America has the worst culture of gun crime in the world. The only thing that will change it is by massively reducing the access to guns, and getting rid of the guns already in circulation. You need a culture change. Two guns dont make a right. Two guns just means someone innocent may become a victim.

In some places, getting a concealed-carry permit is pretty easy, and in others, near impossible if you aren't in law enforcement.

Its largely an irrelevant point considering that you dont have border patrols between states, so getting a gun is as simple as moving to a more relaxed state to acquire a gun. Restrictions dont apply to criminals at any rate. Guns are too readily available, which means it takes very little effort for them to be obtained. Circulation is as much of a problem as your laws. The last massacre, was achieved by a young man who got the guns off his mum! Ludicrous!

[Saracen]

I know! (hence the wink).

My expression was meant as an irony.

My point is, on the whole Americans want to keep their guns, because they're afraid of not being able to protect themselves against those that intend to do harm. But as long as guns are accessible, The wrong sort are going to keep using them. America has the worst culture of gun crime in the world. The only thing that will change it is by massively reducing the access to guns, and getting rid of the guns already in circulation. You need a culture change. Two guns dont make a right. Two guns just means someone innocent may become a victim.


Its largely an irrelevant point considering that you dont have border patrols between states, so getting a gun is as simple as moving to a more relaxed state to acquire a gun. Restrictions dont apply to criminals at any rate. Guns are too readily available, which means it takes very little effort for them to be obtained. Circulation is as much of a problem as your laws. The last massacre, was achieved by a young man who got the guns off his mum! Ludicrous!

But access to guns owned by someone else is due to irresponsibility of the someone that owns them. The solution to that is a decent quality gun cabinet, or gun safe, and don't give other family members, that aren't licenced in their own right, the key or combination.

Also, by the way, they're not "my" laws. I'm British, and live in the UK.

As for availability to criminals, do you think it's that hard to get illegal guns, criminally, even in the UK?

[xodianbarr]

But access to guns owned by someone else is due to irresponsibility of the someone that owns them. The solution to that is a decent quality gun cabinet, or gun safe, and don't give other family members, that aren't licenced in their own right, the key or combination.

Also, by the way, they're not "my" laws. I'm British, and live in the UK.

As for availability to criminals, do you think it's that hard to get illegal guns, criminally, even in the UK?

I didnt mean 'your' laws, that was an oversight. - My apologies. I tried to be careful because i dont know where anyone is from, but i missed that!

As for getting guns in the UK. Course its possible, but it's not nearly as easy. As for restrictions (gun cabinet, safe etc..), they only present a minor obstacle that can be easily overcome in all but the most vigilant of households. Responsibility is the key word. Would you trust everyone to have a home nuke in a 'nuke' cabinet in a household? No you wouldnt (i hope you wouldnt). Simply because you can trust that people will be responsible for its safekeeping - the same applies for guns. In the UK (as you well know) the government can be a bit too restrictive when it comes to shepherding people away from potential risk, and im not saying that agree with it all, but i would always say its better to err on the side of caution. On another note, this whole argument is on the brink of being taken to a whole other level. Take a look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21754915

[TeePee]

Responsibility really is the key word.

The idea that all guns in the US could ever be just eliminated is ludicrous. Criminals here will always have guns. They will always be easily available. All that gun laws achieve are to disarm the law abiding public. Saying that the vast majority of Americans are nice, and the others are gun owners is retarded. Most Americans have guns! While they would never admit to it, that nice old man you met has his WWII service weapon in the attic and an MG-42 bringback hidden in the Barn. You can't label all gun owners one way or another.

The current target of gun legislation is semi-automatic rifles. It's easy for a lot of people to say 'Why would anyone need one of those?'. The reality is that they are used very widely for competition shooting. But they are also a very effective self defence weapon. They are far easier to use, and to shoot accurately in a high-stress situation. This is especially important when you consider that it is often the weaker amongst us who need that protection the most. They can be used easily by someone without a huge amount of training.

The real nonsense of this legislation is that it targets these rifles, despite the fact that, according to the FBI rifles (of all kinds, including bolt-actions) account for only 3% of firearms homicides. The vast majority are committed with handguns. Rifles kill an order of magnitude fewer people every year than fists, knives and clubs.

We need to have a common sense discussion about the lowest rates of violent crime in 40 years, and how to make them even lower.

When it comes to the idea of an armed teacher, I think it's an entirely reasonable progression. Guns cannot be banned. They won't always be kept from the insane, although we can try. But providing 'gun-free zones' which are nothing but perfect targets for this kind of shooting is insane.

[Larkspeed]

I think you want to re-read that. I did not say they are either nice or gun owners, I said there were nice Americans with guns that could give them up without problem and then there were the fanatics with the claw it from my cold dead hands mentality.

And there is no such thing as a common sense discussion with Americans about gun control because no matter how many of these discussions I get into with Americans and no matter how much proof I give that gun control is a good thing they always eventually fall back to the exact same thing "it's our constitutional right"

[xodianbarr]

The idea that all guns in the US could ever be just eliminated is ludicrous. Criminals here will always have guns. They will always be easily available.

Never say never. Of course you cant eliminate them all. But you can drastically reduce them. Of course it wont be easy, and it certainly couldn't be achieved overnight, but nothing is impossible my friend. Though i dont think all Americans are retarded, i do think Americans are preconditioned to see owning a weapon as a normal activity. Americas' society needs to change. The truth is, how many Americans' think that actually owning a gun would prevent them being shot? If someone has a gun, and you pull out your gun 'in defence', it just increases the likelihood that a negative action will result. Look at it like smoking... In the UK, the government is trying to decrease the smoking population. They wont ban it, because a) its a major source of revenue, and b) it may well cause an outcry like the prohibition. So what do they do? They make it 'unpopular'. There's no denying that changing how a society views something such as smoking, or drink-driving, or indeed - guns, will effect what can be achieved in legislation.

You may not entirely agree with my principles, but what you have to agree with is that something needs to be done. Peoples attitudes need to change. and making the vast majority of law abiding citizens adhere to stricter gun laws is not the answer as it will not deter the ones the cause all these atrocities (you said so yourself - criminals will always have guns).

[xodianbarr]

they always eventually fall back to the exact same thing "it's our constitutional right"

- Hear hear. Americans are conditioned to see it is as socially acceptable. Its like arguing with a Catholic about contraception - pointless!

[Saracen]

I didnt mean 'your' laws, that was an oversight. - My apologies. I tried to be careful because i dont know where anyone is from, but i missed that!

As for getting guns in the UK. Course its possible, but it's not nearly as easy. As for restrictions (gun cabinet, safe etc..), they only present a minor obstacle that can be easily overcome in all but the most vigilant of households....

No problem on the "your" bit. I pointed it out because my posts could gave led you to believe I was American.

As for gun safes being easy to get round, if you think that, I can only assume you haven't seen a good one. The term covers a wide range, but consider this .... a vault with two inch thick steel sides, the size if a wardrobe, weighing the same as a small car, takes four big blojes, and a couple of trolleys to move around and install, and that's before you bolt it down, and the locking mechanism includes 16 steel bars, 1 inch diameter, sliding from all four sides of the door.

As long as the key/combination isn't given to people that shouldn't have it, nobody but a competent safecracker is getting into into without either a long session with a thermal cutter, or a large block of C4. That's the sort of gunsafe I'm used to, and believe me, minor obstacle it isn't.

[Saracen]

- Hear hear. Americans are conditioned to see it is as socially acceptable. ...

Or, they just don't agree with you that it isn't. Nor do I.

[TeePee]

The truth is, how many Americans' think that actually owning a gun would prevent them being shot? If someone has a gun, and you pull out your gun 'in defence', it just increases the likelihood that a negative action will result.

If someone has a gun, and you don't, then the outcome is entirely up to him. You clearly have more faith in the goodwill of criminals than I do. Maybe you'll only be raped...

[Rave]

If someone has a gun, and you don't, then the outcome is entirely up to him. You clearly have more faith in the goodwill of criminals than I do. Maybe you'll only be raped...

As a fan of Statham films, and a relatively butch individual in my own right, I'd still fancy my chances, if I darted in there quick enough with a crimmo who hadn't had military training. Break his arm/ dislocate his shoulder, headbut him square in the face and you're laughing...

I don't really have a serious point to make, apart from that I think the post-Dunblane handgun ban in the UK was utterly pointless. 'Gangstas' in my part of SE London never seem to have any bother getting guns, hence how they were able to shoot a six year old through the spine 50 yards away from where I used to be employed to stand around.

[aidanjt]

Yeah, criminals not obeying gun laws? Surely not.

[xodianbarr]

As long as the key/combination isn't given to people that shouldn't have it...

- That is exactly the point. It could be indestructable, but it's only as good as the tight lipped keycode owner. That was the distinction i was making 'can you trust people to act 'responsibly'. More to the point, children like to explore, and teenagers like to rebel. Im sure you've heard of social engineering.. Not that it's the only way to find out a password. Its all about thinking a way round a problem. It's also what tempts people to hack.

[xodianbarr]

If someone has a gun, and you don't, then the outcome is entirely up to him. You clearly have more faith in the goodwill of criminals than I do. Maybe you'll only be raped...

Touche`. Which would you prefer? To be shot or raped? If the attacker has a gun, all you need (or can) do is comply, and hope that you will come out the other end in one piece. Soon as you pull out 'your' weapon. Violence is inevitable, and death becomes a much more likely outcome.

[xodianbarr]

I don't really have a serious point to make, apart from that I think the post-Dunblane handgun ban in the UK was utterly pointless. 'Gangstas' in my part of SE London never seem to have any bother getting guns, hence how they were able to shoot a six year old through the spine 50 yards away from where I used to be employed to stand around.

Anyone can get anything if they really try. But the fact remains that the gun crime in the UK is not in the same realm as it is in the US, and thats because we dont have half a million gun shops up and down the country offering guns out like candy. Another point to make is the fact that most of these major massacres are not committed by your average gangsta style crims. They're committed by the unhinged. Im willing to bet you that an SE London gangsta stands a better chance of obtaining an illegal weapon in the UK, than does your average unhinged member of the British public. As for your point about the law change surrounding the Dunblane shooting being pointless.. Is it? How many repeats of it have we had since? It also saw the introduction of guns amnesties in which 1000's of weapons were voluntarily handed into the police. Any one of those weapons could potentially have been the next Dunblane weapon, so im inclined to disagree with you on that.