guns in the US

[TingTong]

I have just about given up on this whole gun debate. The link is the latest insanity of some Americans and their love of guns. Glad my kids don't go to school there and if they did I would move out. I'd probably move countries too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21722377

The US state of South Dakota has enacted a law allowing school districts to arm teachers and other school staff. The law's backers say it will prevent mass school shootings like a December massacre in Connecticut that killed 26.

 

[datto]

America is the place to be a big shot.

 

[The Fence]

Until "the right to bear arms" is abolished, Americans have every right to protect themselves.

Australia has gun laws yet shootings almost daily in Sydney & Melb.

 

[datto]

When guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns.

 

[Ideo]

Until "the right to bear arms" is abolished, Americans have every right to protect themselves.

Australia has gun laws yet shootings almost daily in Sydney & Melb.

Yes, but it tends to be targeted and confined to the criminal element. And it also tends to be more basic, run of the mill guns.

Big difference to the ongoing spree killings in the US.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

Until "the right to bear arms" is abolished, Americans have every right to protect themselves.

Australia has gun laws yet shootings almost daily in Sydney & Melb.

The most recent reported gunshots fired in Melbourne was yesterday, prior to that it was the 17th of January. Sydney also had one yesterday and previously on the 15th of January. It's way to much, but hardly on a daily basis.

Since 1996 (when gun control was introduced), there has only been one mass shooting at Monash University in 2002. Prior to 1996 there were 9 mass shootings in Australia since 1971 (not a lot compared to the US, but the drop is undeniable).

Whilst our gun laws haven't totally eliminated shootings, they have worked. An interesting summary from Harvard can be found here.

There are certainly legitimate reasons for gun ownership. Farmers certainly have a requirement, sporting use is fine. Restrictions to general ownership have had an obvious benefit to society.

 

[Richard Feynman]

I'm just going to leave these here for anyone who wants to read some of the arguments:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

 

[Aaron_C]

I have just about given up on this whole gun debate. The link is the latest insanity of some Americans and their love of guns. Glad my kids don't go to school there and if they did I would move out. I'd probably move countries too.

Their constitutional rights trump any government interference - that is why it's in the constitution.

 

[kathryn d]

Their constitutional rights trump any government interference - that is why it's in the constitution.

Yes, very true.

The only good part, the criminals need to worry if the victims are armed.
Where in canada and australia, generally we are not...but not to say we don't have weapons in the home.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Warning: contentious comment.

It seems to me that large numbers of guns combined with a generally right wing population do not a good combination make.

 

[Sim]

There is nothing in the US constitution which gives them the right the bear automatic weapons.

 

[BayView]

Their constitutional rights trump any government interference - that is why it's in the constitution.

Another great example of how a law can sometimes be an ***.

Just because it is constitution doesn't make it correct, but what is the solution?

To me; the problem is the bullets.

Anyone can own a gun, but without the bullets to fire, they are useless. We can make it very hard to acquire and own a gun...make it just as hard - or harder - to buy the bullets without good reason.

I think on thing which may help is to make every bullet purchase needing a registration like the guns need to be.

And. with a limit of say; 6 only at any one time - no matter what the weapon, and all records of purchases sent to the respective law enforcement agency to monitor. All bullets to have a matching batch registration number.

No further purchases allowed to be made until those 6 are used (so; potentially a froot-loop could take out 6 people with their ration, but highly unlikely).

All bullets fired by that weapon, or used by others or in another gun, would need to be declared to the respective authority by the registered owner of those bullets, so they can monitor the amount of bullets you have left to fire...

Random audits are then conducted without warning to inspect the registered guns and bullets - If an audit finds bullets missing, the registered owner receives a corresponding penalty. I think immediate confiscation of the gun and bullets, and a hefty fine - for the first offense.

Anyone wanting to buy more than 6 bullets at any one time, or before their current ration has been used, would immediately raise a red flag at that respective agency and then investigated.

Of course; the dangerous folk would look at finding ways to get around this, as they always will, but the process for most ordinary folk who just want to own a gun for protection - or young guys with a gripe who would potentially be a candidate for a spree shoot - it would be a "too hard" thing and hopefully stop them before it's too late.

edit: this would also apply to the components and/or ingredients with which to make bullets....volumes of ingredients purchased only enough to make 6 at any one time, all recorded and registered with the authority, as per the above guidelines..

There ya go; a whole new arm of employment created for the Government - folk to administer and manage the new registration system.

 

[spludgey]

Yes, very true.

The only good part, the criminals need to worry if the victims are armed.
Where in canada and australia, generally we are not...but not to say we don't have weapons in the home.

You're far more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
I'm sure the same would be true with students and gunmen respectively.

 

[Indifference]

There is nothing in the US constitution which gives them the right the bear automatic weapons.

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.


That is the 2nd Amendment... it doesn't say non-auotmatic Arms... so indeed there is something in the US constitution.

 

[Ideo]

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.


That is the 2nd Amendment... it doesn't say non-auotmatic Arms... so indeed there is something in the US constitution.

It doesn't say no nuclear warheads either.

 

[Sim]

That is the 2nd Amendment... it doesn't say non-auotmatic Arms... so indeed there is something in the US constitution.

No - there is nothing in the constitution which dictates the type of arms they can or can't carry.

Are they allowed to carry nuclear weapons? How about just some RPGs or TOW missiles? Grenades?

Ridiculous examples, but still technically valid if you take your line of reasoning.

My point (which you seem to have missed - perhaps because I didn't spell it out), is that there is nothing in the US constitution that I can see which would make it unconstitutional for the government to ban automatic weapons.

The constitution does NOT specify what arms they have the right to bear, there are already plenty of laws in place which ban weapons you could argue are "arms", so why not extend that to automatic weapons?

I can't see any rational justification for the general population to carry automatic weapons - not for hunting, not for recreation, these things are only useful for killing people.

Take them away from the general public and then make it an offence to possess or use them so you have justification for taking them away from the criminals as well. It's not an instant solution, but it's a start.

 

[depreciator]

I'm a veteran of many conversations with Americans on guns. They trot out the Second Amendment justification, and lines from the NRA like 'guns don't kill people, people do.' They talk about their need to protect themselves, too. And let's face it, there are now so many guns in the US that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. There will never be anything meaningful done about guns in America.
The thing that I find odd, and the thing that stops many Americans in their tracks when I mention it, is the incredible enthusiasm they have for keeping an arsenal at home. If I lived in a society where I felt I needed to carry a pistol if I went to the shops at night, I would feel so despondent.

 

[Sim]

And let's face it, there are now so many guns in the US that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. There will never be anything meaningful done about guns in America.

Unfortunately, I fear you are correct. As much as we tut-tut them with our smug superiority, it won't change a thing, not when a significant portion of the population truly believe that more guns really is the answer.

You can't impose such massive changes without a clear mandate from the population, even if it is arguably in their own best interest.

 

[kathryn d]

You're far more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
I'm sure the same would be true with students and gunmen respectively.

I agree.
I do like the idea of Bayview of regulating the ammo...a loophole

 

[locko24]

Guns don't kill people, people do...so I guess we should keep people away from guns!
Or change the constitution!