perhaps if it was illegal to own an unregistered gun, & gun owners who thus registered their weapons were obligated to pay substantial insurance for each weapon owned - the monies received could help pay for both the medical costs associated with the inevitable deaths & injuries & also education/training programs
in addition the poor insurance companies could switch focus from profiteering from the coverage of people's health to profiteering from the right that US citizens have to bear arms
@nth london addick. No point in having those kind of weapons at home what so ever. I've held a shotgun and a firearms licence and owned FAC air rifles for quite a few years now, but can't think why anyone would want to own an assault rifle.
There is much that can be done if the will is there oakster
But no matter what Obama tries to do there is no chance it getting through
I mean there was a man on the house of representives that stated
If the headmistress had a gun she could have shot the purpritater before it got as horrific
I mean Jesus Christ this is a man who will vote on any changes
The American people need to stop thinking about its liberty and the constitution and look to make a real change to the countries future adults
I heard the same on Canadian radio yesterday NLA, some political whacko seriously saying that armed guards should be posted in every school, because schools are a soft target. These armed guards no doubt paid minimum wage (because what budget is there in the public school system to do otherwise) & on god knows what medication, wandering around schools with loaded guns - yep can't see any potential problems with that scenario.
I just don't see how or why a country would allow its people to arm itself with weaponry that it gives to its army
Allows them to build nuclear bunkers buy airforce standard aircraft and helicopters in the off chance aliens or the implosion of its political and monatry back bone
I can sort of understand why someone would buy automatic weapons. If you were someone who had suffered break ins and each time they were armed you probably would go out and buy yourself a gun. I can then understand why some would buy themselves the most powerful weapons they are allowed to buy, let's face it if you are going to have to use the thing you want to make sure it gets the job done.
I know it's very simplistic and in no way am I condoning or making excuses for what has happened. But if the law allows you to purchase such powerful weaponry you have to blame that for the reason people own them.
But I guess that is where the argument against banning guns comes in. I would imagine most of the gun owning population are law abiding and would never think of using it upon innocent people. People using guns for crime would still have easy access for a long time even after a ban came in. Those law abiding folk would be reluctant to give up their weapons knowing that if a burglar came along the likelihood is he would be armed and they would have nothing.
But I guess that is where the argument against banning guns comes in. I would imagine most of the gun owning population are law abiding and would never think of using it upon innocent people. People using guns for crime would still have easy access for a long time even after a ban came in. Those law abiding folk would be reluctant to give up their weapons knowing that if a burglar came along the likelihood is he would be armed and they would have nothing.
They have to start somewhere profile burglars street robbers stop search find automatic weapons remove them jail person for 5 years for posession of automatic weapon
Do the same for drug dealers anyone who has used an automatic weapon in crime
Give law abiding citizens the chance to hand in automatic weapons
But I guess that is where the argument against banning guns comes in. I would imagine most of the gun owning population are law abiding and would never think of using it upon innocent people.
trouble with that sort of argument is that the people that undertake these heinous acts were law abiding citizens... up until the point they pulled the trigger
and never thought of using their guns against innocent people... right up until the point they started thinking about it.
whilst I am all for protecting the rights of the many to enjoy their lives and protect themselves there has to be limits. something like householders permitted only one handgun and limited ammunition at home example. if they want to fire a bazooka/flamethrower/blunderbus then keep the weapons at a secure gun club site and play toy soldiers there.
It really is a tricky area to deal with. Obviously something has to be done but I don't think an initial blanket ban on everything would work. And even if bans are brought in then I don't think it should just be bans, it is clearly part of their culture to own and to use guns. So it would have to be a targeted approach on numerous fronts.
As a side note. When I was looking up the figures for deaths involving guns (admittedly it's Wiki so assuming it is correct) there are 9 deaths per 100,000 people each year. Of these 9, 2.98 are homicides and 5.75 are suicides. So there are nearly twice as many suicides using a gun than homicides. I guess when you think about it it would make sense, people wanting to kill themselves are likely to take the quickest most efficient route but it just surprised me a bit as I'd never heard that before.
They just said on sky news that around 98% of the people at the funeral of the first child to be buried own or are currently in possesion of a fire arm ..
And 3 of the parents whose children were involved in the incidents went out that day to buy a gun
There lies the issue a warped sense of need to protect
It highlights the difficulty faced by obama and others
How do you convince the father of a child just shot dead in his school that he is not really stable enough to own a gun right now
The gun shops allegedly sold them guns thsy day
So now 3 people deep in grief possibly taking some form of medication to assist with thr issues they face in the short term but undoubtably troubled with what has just happened mentally
Are deemed suitable to be issued with a fire arm
And there are people in control of that countries future that see no issue with that situation
The strictest gun controls in the US are in Washington DC, which has historically always had one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Right next door, in Northern Virginia, where the laws were changed a few years back to allow legally owned guns to be carried in public, the crime rate is one of the lowest in the country. Muggings, armed robberies, car-jackings and burglaries all practically disappeared over night, to be almost non-existent. As mentioned by a previous poster, road rage went away too, no more one-finger salutes. When I left England for the US in 1972, I was as anti-gun as anyone, but as I began to understand my environment, I changed my outlook. There are many laws already in place to control gun ownership, different from state to state, and some more effective than others, but they only apply to those who already obey the law. I don't understand the need to own an assault weapon any more than most of the posters on here, but I won't give up my pistol or my shotgun which I keep in my home for protection. Incidentally, convicted felons are never allowed to own guns, nor are illegal aliens, but they are also supposed to have a driver's license when driving, and car insurance, and obey speed limits, but when you don't have a license you can't lose it, so why bother to obey the law? That's why I have insurance against uninsured motorists, it's the same reason I feel the need to own guns, self-preservation. If I ever feel that there is no longer a need to keep them, I will gladly take my guns to be melted down. There was just a snippet on the news about this latest maniacs mother, she was taking him to the range to learn to shoot in order to try to "bond" with him, more than a little mis-guided it would seem. Haven't heard a good answer to this problem yet, but we have to find one, it feels like the stuffing has been knocked out of us right now.
I don't understand the USA and I guess I never will. I never want to own a gun and don't wish to live in a country awash with them.
Given decades of gun culture it seems unlikely anything will change. The more atrocities there are the greater the desire to own guns for protection - this is only heading one way....
There is a problem when you can buy the same weapon US marines used to assault fallujah in what is essentially millets and pick it up 7 days later. Wal mart have their own artillery section too, like everyone else with a brain has said, no one needs an assault rifle or semi automatic weapon domestically, their is a very small percentage of people who can use them properly anyway. It's worth remembering that while we moan about foxes the people of America have some more exciting wildlife like urban bears to encounter now and again, and if you live somewhere even remotely rural in the states it's probably not a bad idea to keep a hunting rifle or a shotgun. But the whole 'defence' thing falls apart when the owners of these weapons say they lock them away safely and lock the ammunition away somewhere else.
But as far as pistols and assault rifles go, I'm not losing sleep that I don't own one. I know people who have guns and the rigmarole they have to go through to keep them just to go and blow a grouse to smithereens or to shoot rabbits is a bit much for me.
They won't change, like someone else said it will take a senators child to be the victim of something horrendous like this to even make a dent in their minds. And that would be medium term
They are suggesting Barack is serious about the banning of Automatic Weapons and especially automatic rifles going to create something in Jan when they return and bring back Bill Clintons ban
The strictest gun controls in the US are in Washington DC, which has historically always had one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Right next door, in Northern Virginia, where the laws were changed a few years back to allow legally owned guns to be carried in public, the crime rate is one of the lowest in the country. Muggings, armed robberies, car-jackings and burglaries all practically disappeared over night, to be almost non-existent. As mentioned by a previous poster, road rage went away too, no more one-finger salutes. When I left England for the US in 1972, I was as anti-gun as anyone, but as I began to understand my environment, I changed my outlook. There are many laws already in place to control gun ownership, different from state to state, and some more effective than others, but they only apply to those who already obey the law. I don't understand the need to own an assault weapon any more than most of the posters on here, but I won't give up my pistol or my shotgun which I keep in my home for protection. Incidentally, convicted felons are never allowed to own guns, nor are illegal aliens, but they are also supposed to have a driver's license when driving, and car insurance, and obey speed limits, but when you don't have a license you can't lose it, so why bother to obey the law? That's why I have insurance against uninsured motorists, it's the same reason I feel the need to own guns, self-preservation. If I ever feel that there is no longer a need to keep them, I will gladly take my guns to be melted down. There was just a snippet on the news about this latest maniacs mother, she was taking him to the range to learn to shoot in order to try to "bond" with him, more than a little mis-guided it would seem. Haven't heard a good answer to this problem yet, but we have to find one, it feels like the stuffing has been knocked out of us right now.
I can't, personally, see past the irony that you need a gun for protection, mainly, because everyone else has one.
I know the UK is far from perfect, but the suggestion that the best way to stop road rage is to ensure that it will probably be met with death seems the wrong way to go to me.
The legal process in the US will probably ensure that you will always be able to own a gun there. Those that are not going to kill children don't see why they shouldn't have one and those that might go on the rampage are in no position to make a sane decision anyway.
The shooting for bonding is an interesting point. Out here in Kent I know lots of people who take their children (mainly boys) shooting. It is common for them to learn these skills from their fathers. The big difference, however, is that I'm talking about millionaire land owners not dysfunctional families that live in urban cities and towns.
However, there does need to be protection from the fear that allowing everyone to do something is a mistake because a very small minority will 'spoil it for the rest of us.'
Please don't think that I'm trivialising what happened, I'm not! I'm just looking at the logic that the US lawmakers (politicians) will consider when they try to satisfy both the gun loving American public and, perhaps the more important, lobbyists that fund their election campaigns.
The strictest gun controls in the US are in Washington DC, which has historically always had one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Right next door, in Northern Virginia, where the laws were changed a few years back to allow legally owned guns to be carried in public, the crime rate is one of the lowest in the country. Muggings, armed robberies, car-jackings and burglaries all practically disappeared over night, to be almost non-existent. As mentioned by a previous poster, road rage went away too, no more one-finger salutes.
Those are good points but I have to wonder if the drop in crime rates is worth the cost in human lives? Sure, muggings, burglaries etc are awful but would you rather have those or tens of thousands of people killed each year with guns?
My Grandad taught me how to shoot when i was 9 years of age in Ireland i hunted with him every year till i was 16 the power of his riffle always surprised me everytime i shot it but i never wanted my own one
The strictest gun controls in the US are in Washington DC, which has historically always had one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Right next door, in Northern Virginia, where the laws were changed a few years back to allow legally owned guns to be carried in public, the crime rate is one of the lowest in the country. Muggings, armed robberies, car-jackings and burglaries all practically disappeared over night, to be almost non-existent. As mentioned by a previous poster, road rage went away too, no more one-finger salutes. When I left England for the US in 1972, I was as anti-gun as anyone, but as I began to understand my environment, I changed my outlook. There are many laws already in place to control gun ownership, different from state to state, and some more effective than others, but they only apply to those who already obey the law. I don't understand the need to own an assault weapon any more than most of the posters on here, but I won't give up my pistol or my shotgun which I keep in my home for protection. Incidentally, convicted felons are never allowed to own guns, nor are illegal aliens, but they are also supposed to have a driver's license when driving, and car insurance, and obey speed limits, but when you don't have a license you can't lose it, so why bother to obey the law? That's why I have insurance against uninsured motorists, it's the same reason I feel the need to own guns, self-preservation. If I ever feel that there is no longer a need to keep them, I will gladly take my guns to be melted down. There was just a snippet on the news about this latest maniacs mother, she was taking him to the range to learn to shoot in order to try to "bond" with him, more than a little mis-guided it would seem. Haven't heard a good answer to this problem yet, but we have to find one, it feels like the stuffing has been knocked out of us right now.
But DC is just a city, it's not hard to get a gun even if it's illegal to have one. And, of course, DC has had a huge drop in the crime rate and the murder rate sine th crack epidemic ran its course. Last year it had it's lowest number of murders since the early 60s.
That said I agree - the genie is out of the bottle. There are just far too many guns in the US to ban them. As ever in this country, people gave an extraordinary degree of faith in the efficacy of making something illegal.
this was posted: The American Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788. 1791 is when their right to bear arms originates from. Time for a re think?? As I posted earlier " there ain't no injuns or outlaws any more ( referring to the wild west ).
This is a misconception waht the constitution states is that there is a right to bear arms to form an organised and disciplied militia. This was added as it was basically local militia's that fought us. It doesn't say that any dick head can buy a gun. That said there are so many in circulation it is impossible to have an manesty that would work the lawless would take over the country. Oh and by the way if anyone thinks that there are no outlaws left in the US try lower LA or southside Chicago.
Thomas Jefferson, a life-long hunter and gun collector, wrote just before his death in 1826 that “all power is inherent in the people; . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” The understanding by his generation of the Second Amendment was clear and unmistakable—as its text states, it recognizes “the right of the people” to possess and carry arms. The Constitution defines the respective powers of the federal and state governments, but the Bill of Rights speaks largely of individual rights. If the Second Amendment is no exception, what it protects—and what restrictions government may impose—will continue to be hotly debated. Extract from a book regarding the second amendment. Has this law been misunderstood and manipulated over time?
86 people killed in the USA alone by gun crime last year, over 200 injured by gun crime that lived and thousands of instances where guns have been brandished as a threat or symbol of power.
Comments
in addition the poor insurance companies could switch focus from profiteering from the coverage of people's health to profiteering from the right that US citizens have to bear arms
But no matter what Obama tries to do there is no chance it getting through
I mean there was a man on the house of representives that stated
If the headmistress had a gun she could have shot the purpritater before it got as horrific
I mean Jesus Christ this is a man who will vote on any changes
The American people need to stop thinking about its liberty and the constitution and look to make a real change to the countries future adults
Allows them to build nuclear bunkers buy airforce standard aircraft and helicopters in the off chance aliens or the implosion of its political and monatry back bone
I know it's very simplistic and in no way am I condoning or making excuses for what has happened. But if the law allows you to purchase such powerful weaponry you have to blame that for the reason people own them.
I can't accept this argument though as it is alien to me so just seems crazy
Do the same for drug dealers anyone who has used an automatic weapon in crime
Give law abiding citizens the chance to hand in automatic weapons
Hard line attitudes needed
and never thought of using their guns against innocent people... right up until the point they started thinking about it.
whilst I am all for protecting the rights of the many to enjoy their lives and protect themselves there has to be limits. something like householders permitted only one handgun and limited ammunition at home example. if they want to fire a bazooka/flamethrower/blunderbus then keep the weapons at a secure gun club site and play toy soldiers there.
As a side note. When I was looking up the figures for deaths involving guns (admittedly it's Wiki so assuming it is correct) there are 9 deaths per 100,000 people each year. Of these 9, 2.98 are homicides and 5.75 are suicides. So there are nearly twice as many suicides using a gun than homicides. I guess when you think about it it would make sense, people wanting to kill themselves are likely to take the quickest most efficient route but it just surprised me a bit as I'd never heard that before.
And 3 of the parents whose children were involved in the incidents went out that day to buy a gun
There lies the issue a warped sense of need to protect
Its a shocking shocking situation
How do you convince the father of a child just shot dead in his school that he is not really stable enough to own a gun right now
The gun shops allegedly sold them guns thsy day
So now 3 people deep in grief possibly taking some form of medication to assist with thr issues they face in the short term but undoubtably troubled with what has just happened mentally
Are deemed suitable to be issued with a fire arm
And there are people in control of that countries future that see no issue with that situation
When I left England for the US in 1972, I was as anti-gun as anyone, but as I began to understand my environment, I changed my outlook.
There are many laws already in place to control gun ownership, different from state to state, and some more effective than others, but they only apply to those who already obey the law.
I don't understand the need to own an assault weapon any more than most of the posters on here, but I won't give up my pistol or my shotgun which I keep in my home for protection.
Incidentally, convicted felons are never allowed to own guns, nor are illegal aliens, but they are also supposed to have a driver's license when driving, and car insurance, and obey speed limits, but when you don't have a license you can't lose it, so why bother to obey the law? That's why I have insurance against uninsured motorists, it's the same reason I feel the need to own guns, self-preservation. If I ever feel that there is no longer a need to keep them, I will gladly take my guns to be melted down.
There was just a snippet on the news about this latest maniacs mother, she was taking him to the range to learn to shoot in order to try to "bond" with him, more than a little mis-guided it would seem.
Haven't heard a good answer to this problem yet, but we have to find one, it feels like the stuffing has been knocked out of us right now.
Given decades of gun culture it seems unlikely anything will change. The more atrocities there are the greater the desire to own guns for protection - this is only heading one way....
But as far as pistols and assault rifles go, I'm not losing sleep that I don't own one. I know people who have guns and the rigmarole they have to go through to keep them just to go and blow a grouse to smithereens or to shoot rabbits is a bit much for me.
They won't change, like someone else said it will take a senators child to be the victim of something horrendous like this to even make a dent in their minds. And that would be medium term
I know the UK is far from perfect, but the suggestion that the best way to stop road rage is to ensure that it will probably be met with death seems the wrong way to go to me.
The legal process in the US will probably ensure that you will always be able to own a gun there. Those that are not going to kill children don't see why they shouldn't have one and those that might go on the rampage are in no position to make a sane decision anyway.
The shooting for bonding is an interesting point. Out here in Kent I know lots of people who take their children (mainly boys) shooting. It is common for them to learn these skills from their fathers. The big difference, however, is that I'm talking about millionaire land owners not dysfunctional families that live in urban cities and towns.
However, there does need to be protection from the fear that allowing everyone to do something is a mistake because a very small minority will 'spoil it for the rest of us.'
Please don't think that I'm trivialising what happened, I'm not! I'm just looking at the logic that the US lawmakers (politicians) will consider when they try to satisfy both the gun loving American public and, perhaps the more important, lobbyists that fund their election campaigns.
wow
That said I agree - the genie is out of the bottle. There are just far too many guns in the US to ban them. As ever in this country, people gave an extraordinary degree of faith in the efficacy of making something illegal.
This is a misconception waht the constitution states is that there is a right to bear arms to form an organised and disciplied militia. This was added as it was basically local militia's that fought us. It doesn't say that any dick head can buy a gun. That said there are so many in circulation it is impossible to have an manesty that would work the lawless would take over the country. Oh and by the way if anyone thinks that there are no outlaws left in the US try lower LA or southside Chicago.
Extract from a book regarding the second amendment. Has this law been misunderstood and manipulated over time?