I remember the discussions we had here after the Sandy Hook shooting. The US has a real problem and you don't do a damn thing about it. When will you do something about it? The Brits did after their mass shooting incidents. The Aussies did after their worst mass shooting. I'm struggling whit why the US doesn't do anything about it. Your 2nd Amendment doesn't work or are all Americans members of a "well regulated militia" In the early 20th century, the US congress ratified the National Guard Act, that is your well regulated militia. The US has changed the bills of rights before, so why don't you do anything about it? In a historical context, what your founding fathers did was amazing. It created shock waves across the world when Europe was rules by Kings and Queens, but it was a long time ago. We have moved on from it now. Our Royals are now only representatives of our countries and have no political power at all. There is one major difference between the American constitution and ours. We have the 1st Amendment and nothing more than that. All other laws are not a part of the constitutions. We don't have the right to bare arms, among us it is a privilege to bare arms. It's like getting a driver's license. A person who wants to get a hunting license must undergo a training and a background check.

There is one thing I want the Americans to do is to ask themselves a question. Why don't the rest of the free world have the some issues as you have when it comes to firearm related issues as you do. Use the available PRIMARY sources to check things out and not perceiving your constitution as how Christians are viewing the Bible.

Is the US governed by the NRA or by you?

Even the Houston police chief is fed up and wants change!

"I know some have strong feelings about gun rights but I want you to know I've hit rock bottom and I am not interested in your views as it pertains to this issue. Please do not post anything about guns aren't the problem and there's little we can do," Chief Acevedo said in his Facebook post.

"This isn't a time for prayers, and study and inaction, it's a time for prayers, action and the asking of God's forgiveness for our inaction (especially the elected officials that ran to the cameras today, acted in a solemn manner, called for prayers, and will once again do absolutely nothing)," he added.

Chief Acevedo first spoke out about gun control in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting last October, and was a prominent figure in Texas's March for Our Lives demonstration following the Florida attack earlier this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44187718

Don't believe the rubbish the NRA are telling you. Nothing bad will happen if you don't have a firearm. Other countries are managing just fine with proper firearms controls.

I think he is wrong I agree with him entirely but he misses one salient point and that is that there are already millions of guns on US streets and no amount of laws will change that.


What I am going to say is not very nice, I know it and I accept it will be hard for people to swallow but the world needs to stop caring, I don't know about other countries but mass shootings in the US have almost become a running joke.
Next week there will be another shooting followed by the standard response.
- Outrage, prayers.
- A demand for action.
- The NRA declaring that there need to be more guns.
- Politicians going silent.
- The President announcing nothing.
- The next mass shooting.
- Goto step 1.


All we can and do is make damn sure the NRA and its lunatic ideas stay in America and they don't try and export them.



Trump does need a wall to keep Mexicans out, the world needs a wall to keep Americans in.

Maybe the NRA is correct in its suggestion about firearms. Give all people guns so they can kill each other. Tell all American families to get at least 8 kids, half of them will not survive to the age allowing them to buy beer.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think he is wrong I agree with him entirely but he misses one salient point and that is that there are already millions of guns on US streets and no amount of laws will change that.


What I am going to say is not very nice, I know it and I accept it will be hard for people to swallow but the world needs to stop caring, I don't know about other countries but mass shootings in the US have almost become a running joke.
Next week there will be another shooting followed by the standard response.
- Outrage, prayers.
- A demand for action.
- The NRA declaring that there need to be more guns.
- Politicians going silent.
- The President announcing nothing.
- The next mass shooting.
- Goto step 1.


All we can and do is make damn sure the NRA and its lunatic ideas stay in America and they don't try and export them.



Trump does need a wall to keep Mexicans out, the world needs a wall to keep Americans in.

I agree, I don't really care about this shooting or the next shooting.

Trump and the White House have been very quiet on the latest shootings.

I think the PR woman said something about "protecting children". I guess they are sticking with the idea of arming teachers.

Fight the shootings by arming more people. Genius.

Trying to make sense of the US reaction is pointless because they are stuck with the mentality that when all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail, as I have said the only important thing is that their views and policies are not allowed to spread.


It is a topic that under normal circumstances is worthy of discussion but as mass shootings are now a weekly event in the US and their only acceptable answer is to mull over how many more guns they need to solve the problem it is no longer possible to have a rational discussion with them.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Maybe the NRA is correct in its suggestion about firearms. Give all people guns so they can kill each other. Tell all American families to get at least 8 kids, half of them will not survive to the age allowing them to buy beer.

KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.

Whatever works I guess

I will counter that with...
Mandatory Gun Ownership in Kennesaw, Georgia

Did a mandatory gun ownership law in Kennesaw, Georgia, cause the town's crime rate to plummet?




8K




CLAIM

A mandatory gun ownership law in Kennesaw, Georgia, caused the town's crime rate to plummet.
RATING

Mostly False ORIGIN

A mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, revived interest in a number of memes about gun control, among them the above-reproduced claim involving the town of Kennesaw, Georgia.
According to the graphic shown here, Kennesaw mandated gun ownership for all households in 1982, and as a result, crime rates dropped dramatically.
But even the most basic element of the claim, about the imposition of mandatory gun ownership in that town, wasn’t quite true. The law in question stated:

Sec. 34-21. – Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

In other words, Kennesaw residents were required to own guns … save for those Kennesaw residents who couldn’t afford guns, couldn’t use guns, couldn’t legally own guns, or simply didn’t want to have guns. Essentially, Kennesaw residents were never actually required to own guns, making most assertions about mandatory gun ownership and crime rates in that town highly problematic.
That law was a direct response to a (since repealed) 1981 handgun ban implemented in Morton Grove, Illinois. An important point of distinction was that Kennesaw’s law was largely symbolic and was never intended to be enforced; as such, it is clearly not an exceptionally good indicator of the effect of such a mandate on crime statistics.
As Kennesaw Police Department’s Lt. Craig Graydon explained in a February 2013 article, gun ownership wasn’t truly compulsory in Kennesaw (or ever intended to be):

Kennesaw’s 1982 gun mandate was a direct response to a gun ban enacted a year earlier in Morton Grove, Illinois. That was later deemed unconstitutional, but Kennesaw’s law is still on the books.
Added Lt. Graydon, “It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens’ second amendment rights to own firearms.”
Homeowners in Kennesaw who don’t buy a gun are not punished. In fact, there are several exemptions, including religious objections, if someone is a convicted felon, has a mental illness or simply can’t afford a weapon.

Lt. Graydon’s sentiment was echoed earlier in an April 1987 New York Times article in which then-Mayor J.O. Stephenson was quoted as saying:

Mayor Stephenson says that in the five years since the gun ordinance was adopted the city has never prosecuted anyone for refusing to keep a gun. Officials concede that the ordinance is, for all intents, unenforceable.
“We’re not interested in searching people’s houses,” said the Mayor. “Mostly, what we wanted to do was make a statement, to make people sit up and take notice. And they did, and we’re proud of that.”

Much of the claim hinged on the passage of time for plausibility. Hard statistics for the crime rate in a small Georgia city before 1982 were difficult to come by in 2015 (more than three decades later), but the author of a 18 March 1982 New York Times editorial titled “The Guns of Kennesaw” squeezed those numbers from the initially “reticent” Mayor Darvin Purdy and Chief of Police Robert Ruble:

The jovial officials turn more reticent when talk turns to crime statistics in their community of 7,000. Chief Ruble says overall crime in 1981 was up 16 percent from 1980. But you have to ask to find out the details. Armed robberies did soar — from one in 1980 to four in 1981. Homicides declined, from two in 1980 to none in 1981.

Soon afterwards, the narrative claiming a reduction in crime had begun to develop (even as Mayor Stephenson conceded he had no idea how many residents newly became gun owners because of the law):

In 1981, the year before the ordinance was adopted, Kennesaw recorded 55 house burglaries. The next year there were 26, and in 1985 only 11.

As the news excerpt referenced above indicated, a drop in homicides owing to a mandatory gun ownership law would be difficult to measure, as the number of murders that took place in Kennesaw the year prior to the law’s implementation was zero as therefore could drop no lower. And the increased number of armed robberies from 1980 (one) to 1981 (four) represented a sample so low that a subsequent reduction in such crime didn’t provide any meaningful data from which a conclusion about “mandatory” gun ownership and crime rates could be drawn.
Another aspect to consider is whether Kennesaw’s crime rates were observed elsewhere in the state. In the decade bracketing the law’s passage (1976 through 1986) there was a significant drop in murders, burglaries, property crimes, the property crime rate, and the burglary rate in Georgia as whole (despite Kennesaw’s outlier status with the gun law in question). Statewide, the murder rate similarly dropped in a fairly dramatic fashion after 1982 without a statewide law requiring gun ownership.
The graphic is correct in that Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law in 1982 mandating all residents own a gun. But it neglected to mention that officials (who incidentally strongly supported the law) said repeatedly over the years that the law was symbolic and unenforceable, openly admitting that there was no information on whether even one additional gun was purchased due to its passage. In 1982, Kennesaw’s mayor and chief of police told the New York Times that their crime rate had always been low, and the entire state of Georgia experienced a drop in all crimes cited (burglary, property crime, and murder) in the years immediately following the law. So while the law remained on the books, there was functionally no “requirement” anyone own a gun, the already low crime rate of Kennesaw didn’t “plummet,” and the absence of the law’s enforcement rendered it virtually meaningless.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kennesaw-gun-law/

Washington DC was once the murder capital of the US, since a handgun ban has been revoked, concealed carry has reduced crime.

A school shooting near Chicago was stopped by an armed officer at the school, the shooter was wounded and arrested.

In Israel trained teachers have carried guns in school for years, foiling attacks on a number of occasions.

JERUSALEM – Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers.

The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country’s national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Oren Shemtov, CEO of Israel’s Academy of Security and Investigation, noted that attacks typically happen in a matter of minutes, and said gun-toting teachers could, at the very least, buy time for kids to escape while police race to the scene.

“Two (armed) teachers would have kept (the Newtown shooter) occupied for 45 seconds each,” said Shemtov, who is one of 16 people in Israel authorized to train those who instruct school guards.

Shemtov, a veteran of Israel’s security services who has been teaching security methods for 22 years, praised the Newtown teachers who gave their lives trying to protect children, but lamented the fact that they weren’t able to shoot back when gunman Adam Lanza opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults before shooting himself in the head as police converged on Sand Hook Elementary School.

“We need to give them the tools to be heroes,” Shemtov said. “No one wants to be a hero. They did what they had to do.”