Barack Obama - Now More Than Ever Is The Time To Change USA Gun Laws

[dingodan]

Well, isn't that a lovely little rule ? thats really a jolly good idea. I mean it must be so difficult with kids in the morning, checking they have done their homework,getting their sports kit ready, getting the right books, the lunch box.... " Oh, and have you packed your piece and spare clip Leroy ? "

Maybe, just maybe, it might be worth trying a country as a " Gun Free Zone " ? It isn't going to happen and this thread and this debate will slide in to the background until the next mass shooting.

I feel so sorry for all those young innocent lives snuffed out, for the teachers trying to save their kids and the parents facing the rest of their lives grieving.

Sadly nothing will change.


ps, please don't call me " Dude "

Making a country a gun free zone? This is your problem, you are not realistic. Similarly, did you think I was saying "lets arm the kids"? Or again, are you just being simple?

If a school was not a Gun Free Zone then a responsible, law abiding citizen, someone who works at the school, may carry a firearm with them.

Unless you can do something about the advent of metal working and welding, firearm technology is not something you can un-invent. A world without any weapons would be nice, nobody would get hurt. But consider this, in a world which consisted only of weapons - nobody would get hurt either.

 

[Robdinho]

in a world which consisted only of weapons - nobody would get hurt either.

What's that cliche about not arguing with an idiot...

 

[simmo]

Not disagreaing with you but the same could be carried out with a shot gun in this country,or an illegaly purchased semi automatic rifle,guns dont kill people, people do

Indeed they do. In Britain we have had Hungerford, Dunblane and Derrick Bird (the lake district) but the key fact is because our gun control laws are much stricter, guns are so much rarer, in society and these incidents in the UK are much rarer. 3 such incidents in 30(ish) years.

In the USA because guns are so much easier to get hold off, people with suicidal tendencies and probably are mentally ill, can go out in blaze of bullets (for reasons known only to them). Just recently there was the Batman killing and 3 people were shot in a mall (somewhere in the US less than 2 weeks ago) the US senator shot in a mall, Columbine, Virginia Tech, just things I can think off. There are probably dozens in the last 30 years in the US. The list goes on and on.

Adam Lanza got his weapons of his mum. I mean whose mum in the UK would have around the house the weapons she had? If he didn't have access to these guns (as he almost undoubtedly wouldn't be allowed to in the UK) maybe he would have slit his own wrists in the end and not taken 25 other people as well.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

You can commit a mass killing with a hand gun. Or a rifle. Or a car. Or anything flammable, or poisonous...etc

Give me one example in the last 100 years where a lone person was able to murder 26 people in under 15 minutes with any of those methods you have listed. The point is, semi automatic weapons are designed for mass killing and serve no other purpose. Why should they be readily available in any person's home? Do burglars work in teams of 20+?

The one restriction which is appropriate and reasonable, which already exists, is to be to ban the sale of firearms to those with certain criminal convictions.

Not those with a history of mental health problems?

I have a prediction. If strict gun laws/restrictions are ever implemented in the U.S. the black market in restricted weapons will grow, it will become more lucrative and all those dollars you mention will be lining the pockets of organized crime. And when they sell weapons they won't be running any records checks on the purchaser.

I have a prediction also. Ban semi-automatic weapon ownership and there may well be an underground market in weapons. However, the likelihood of the kinds of people committing these atrocities having either the wherewithal to locate an underground dealer, or the kind of money that they're likely to be selling these weapons for (lucrative market as you say), is pretty remote. They will in fact be far more likely to grab a shotgun, low calibre handgun or a knife and may well kill a few people before first responders arrive. Killing sprees of the level of Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine would be a thing of bad memories though.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Why do you believe that gun control will reduce mass killings? Here is an example of gun control: Schools are Gun Free Zones. Here is an example of a seemingly difficult and common problem in the U.S.: School shootings.

I am not arguing that a school being a Gun Free Zone caused any shootings to happen (because correlation does not mean causation, you see?). But what we can say is that schools being Gun Free Zones has not prevented school shootings. It's also likely that if they had not been Gun Free Zones (which really applies only to people who will obey the rules), then perhaps some lives could have been saved.[/QUOTE]

Do you not realise the irony of what you are saying? A country that needs 'school gun free zones' and suffers from 'school shootings' clearly has a gun problem. And your answer to this problem is more guns?Your arguments are clearly ideologically biased rather than rational.

 

[dingodan]

Surely you can see though, that if a criminal is armed, and no-one else is, then the gun is unlikely to be fired (obviously I'm not talking about the mass shootings here, but their motivation is quite different from the majority of gun crime). If the criminal is armed, and someone else is also armed and pointing a gun at them, then someone is going to get shot.

The gun is unlikely to be fired because the criminal will be able to take what they want without any resistance. And unarmed people still get shot.

I can see what your saying, in that these people possibly target schools because they think they are a soft target, but how can the answer possibly be more guns? Where do you stop? Should every child be armed and take marksmanship classes as part of their school day? If you put guns in schools then it is pretty much inevitable that at some point someone in the school uses that gun to kill someone else in the school. Surely it is better to reduce the number of guns owned by people who have no real need for them.

It's not about "more guns". I have no idea what you are describing with a gun in a school which anyone can pick up lol. I am talking about allowing a staff member, who owns a firearm, to carry it with them onto the property.

In the UK, if some sad, depressed, bitter loner kid had dark thoughts about killing his classmates then the chances are they wouldn't have the money, underground contacts or social skills to source a firearm to do it, and those feelings would pass without incident. In the US they just need to pop into the basement and borrow dad's.

What you are saying is that whether or not a person can get hold of a firearm will determine whether or not they will commit murder, and it just doesn't work like that.

 

[The Large One]

Might be worth a read of this.

War AtHome - The Demos Blog - PolicyShop

 

[vegster]

Making a country a gun free zone? This is your problem, you are not realistic. Similarly, did you think I was saying "lets arm the kids"? Or again, are you just being simple?

If a school was not a Gun Free Zone then a responsible, law abiding citizen, someone who works at the school, may carry a firearm with them.

Unless you can do something about the advent of metal working and welding, firearm technology is not something you can un-invent. A world without any weapons would be nice, nobody would get hurt. But consider this, in a world which consisted only of weapons - nobody would get hurt either.

I'm really wasting my time here but lets try and be concise and wrap this all up.

1,There has been yet another mass shooting.

2, These people were shot with guns.

3, Current laws allow people access to high powered weaponary in order to protct themselves from people armed with high powered weapony.

4, You are either proposing that the current laws are either working or would work better if more people were armed with high powered weaponary

5, And you think I am stupid ?

Well, fortunately it's America's problem to try to figure it out and I hope that one day they will, but i'm not optimistic.

 

[dingodan]

Do you not realise the irony of what you are saying? A country that needs 'school gun free zones' and suffers from 'school shootings' clearly has a gun problem. And your answer to this problem is more guns?Your arguments are clearly ideologically biased rather than rational.

The Gun Free Zone Act was enacted in 1990. The U.S. does not "need" gun free zones, it has gun free zones. For example in schools. Where it also has school shootings.

Perhaps the perpetrators did not see the "Gun Free Zone" sign.

 

[Nibble]

Gun control is not crime control.

Gun laws will not prevent gun related homicide and mass killings.

Most of you have a very infantile attitude to this subject, and most of you appear to lack any basic reasoning and logic skills.

Better start another thread.

You and the other CT nuts on here have much in commoin. You are all aggressive, snooty, self satisfied tosspots. You make this board a worse place and I really wish you would all f*** off. Bunch of wankers. Plus, you lot are wrong 99% of the time.

 

[Nibble]

Right to bare Arms but not a right to hold ammunition. Ban ammunition and after a while the finite resource runs out no matter what the constitution says.

Christ. BEAR arms people, BEAR.

 

[Robdinho]

The gun is unlikely to be fired because the criminal will be able to take what they want without any resistance. And unarmed people still get shot.

Surely the criminal taking what they want without any resistance is preferable to people being murdered? The idea being they would then be arrested and brought to justice at a later date, and nobody gets killed? (Yes, I realise that a startling number of crimes never lead to an arrest, but that's an entirely separate issue and I would still rather that situation than vigilante killing)

And yes, unarmed people do still get shot, but far far less often in countries with less access to guns, which is the point everyone is trying to make

It's not about "more guns". I have no idea what you are describing with a gun in a school which anyone can pick up lol. I am talking about allowing a staff member, who owns a firearm, to carry it with them onto the property.

Not sure this is an issue to be 'lol'ing about really. You are wilfully missing my point here - if someone in a school has a gun then the chances are that that gun will be used, not on some assailant, but on an innocent victim as a result of a misunderstanding. This is the most likely cause of people being shot in the home, it would be exactly the same in a school.

In addition, by introducing the gun into the school you introduce the risk (however small) that that gun could fall into the wrong hands. The 'wrong hands' could even be those of the person designated to carry it.

What you are saying is that whether or not a person can get hold of a firearm will determine whether or not they will commit murder, and it just doesn't work like that.

No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if a person is mentally ill and has a spur of the moment desire to kill people, and if that person has easy access to a gun then that person is quite a lot more likely to act on their desire than a person who would have to actively go out and procure a weapon from some other source.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I am talking about allowing a staff member, who owns a firearm, to carry it with them onto the property.

Because that would reduce the number of shootings in school ?

I am sure we can all think of teachers who it would not have been wise to have armed in front of a class full of young people.

Madness.

 

[dingodan]

I'm really wasting my time here but lets try and be concise and wrap this all up.

1,There has been yet another mass shooting.

2, These people were shot with guns.

3, Current laws allow people access to high powered weaponary in order to protct themselves from people armed with high powered weapony.

4, You are either proposing that the current laws are either working or would work better if more people were armed with high powered weaponary

5, And you think I am stupid ?

Well, fortunately it's America's problem to try to figure it out and I hope that one day they will, but i'm not optimistic.

The laws are different in different states. This recent attack took place in one of the strictest states in the U.S. when it comes to firearms restrictions.

I have only been saying that the calls for banning guns in the U.S. are misguided. And the calls to strictly control them are misguided too.

If you want a good suggestion for how something like this recent event could be prevented, abolish "Gun Free Zones".

Have you ever asked yourself, of all the recorded firearms fatalities, how many of them were cases of self defense? How many lives do you think have been saved because someone had a firearm?

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store - ABC4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

 

[dingodan]

Because that would reduce the number of shootings in school ?

I am sure we can all think of teachers who it would not have been wise to have armed in front of a class full of young people.

Madness.

We can all think of teachers who we think would have acted irresponsibly with a firearm at a school? Can we? Think about it. It's idiotic isn't it.

Where does all of this crazy irrationality come from?

 

[dingodan]

You and the other CT nuts on here have much in commoin. You are all aggressive, snooty, self satisfied tosspots. You make this board a worse place and I really wish you would all f*** off. Bunch of wankers. Plus, you lot are wrong 99% of the time.

My posts are not aggressive. Your post is quite aggressive.

 

[beorhthelm]

clearly the only way forward is to arm the teachers.

 

[Nibble]

My posts are not aggressive. Your post is quite aggressive.

Yeah, your first dig into this thread is again, accsuising people of ignornace etc. You're a twat,

 

[dingodan]

Surely the criminal taking what they want without any resistance is preferable to people being murdered? The idea being they would then be arrested and brought to justice at a later date, and nobody gets killed? (Yes, I realise that a startling number of crimes never lead to an arrest, but that's an entirely separate issue and I would still rather that situation than vigilante killing)

And yes, unarmed people do still get shot, but far far less often in countries with less access to guns, which is the point everyone is trying to make



Not sure this is an issue to be 'lol'ing about really. You are wilfully missing my point here - if someone in a school has a gun then the chances are that that gun will be used, not on some assailant, but on an innocent victim as a result of a misunderstanding. This is the most likely cause of people being shot in the home, it would be exactly the same in a school.

In addition, by introducing the gun into the school you introduce the risk (however small) that that gun could fall into the wrong hands. The 'wrong hands' could even be those of the person designated to carry it.


No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if a person is mentally ill and has a spur of the moment desire to kill people, and if that person has easy access to a gun then that person is quite a lot more likely to act on their desire than a person who would have to actively go out and procure a weapon from some other source.

I don't know why you think that if someone has a gun, then it will get used. How many guns are there in the U.S. What % of them do you think have been fired at another person? Maybe it's TV or the News or something but for some reason it appears nobody in this country is able to think clearly about this subject.

 

[dingodan]

Yeah, your first dig into this thread is again, accsuising people of ignornace etc. You're a twat,

Twat is an abusive term. Ignorance is a state of being, it is not a derogatory term. I don't say you are ignorant to insult you. I say it because you are lacking knowledge, information, or awareness. If you don't like the idea of being ignorant, try getting informed.