This is getting out of hand.

[I3BrigPvSk]

Very true however we do blame the shooter and we license drivers so they know their responsibilities therefore there is no reason to blame the car (it being an inanimate also helps there).

What we or rather the Americans need to do is to establish a system so the can use the 2nd A and limit the access to firearms for the few (in the US they are many) the 2nd A cannot be for all. I have been thinking of two ways; the first is to have a psychologist evaluate every gun owner and continue to do so over the space of time. Then the storage or firearms in people homes, perhaps more strict regulations about that, and we haven't touched the 2nd A.

 

[Ted]

Hasn't this issue been addressed before? I am pretty sure I have seen the "tool-theory" before. Sure a gun can be seen as a tool, like a car, screwdriver or a shovel. The only difference being that a gun is designed to kill where all the other tools serve a different purpose. Point the thing at someone/ something pull the trigger and you have your dinner.
And there is a large portion of society that can own guns without killing humans and sometimes even animals. But in general you get the society you deserve. If lonely kids or disillusioned adults start random shooting, talking about allowing guns is like bringing mustard when dinner is already eaten. The guns aren't the problem, they onlly aggravate a much bigger issue nobody seems willing to tackle. It might take some extra time you don't get paid for which is not on the list of our God-given rights.

 

[George]

Very true however we do blame the shooter and we license drivers so they know their responsibilities therefore there is no reason to blame the car (it being an inanimate also helps there).

The gun is an inanimate object, yet some areas destroy guns used in crimes. Read somewhere that back in Centuries past horses were hung in England for kicking people to death, that would be unthinkable today to put a horse down, but it does have a brain, vs the inanimate gun.

What we or rather the Americans need to do is to establish a system so the can use the 2nd A and limit the access to firearms for the few (in the US they are many) the 2nd A cannot be for all. I have been thinking of two ways; the first is to have a psychologist evaluate every gun owner and continue to do so over the space of time. Then the storage or firearms in people homes, perhaps more strict regulations about that, and we haven't touched the 2nd A.

It's the Right of THE PEOPLE to keep & bear arms, not the few or the Elite of Society. When your home is beinmg invaded responce time is extremely short. storage laws would be fine in a crime free world, not so much in the real world.

 

[RayManKiller3]

It's the Right of THE PEOPLE to keep & bear arms, not the few or the Elite of Society. When your home is beinmg invaded responce time is extremely short. storage laws would be fine in a crime free world, not so much in the real world.

That is the point I like to bring up... It is really difficult to actually keep guns from going to the "bad guys" when so many people have it. A lot of people that do crimes with guns are not necessarily nutcases and will not be found by psychologist (only the killing spree ones). What is the sense in psychological evaluations anyways when someone can get it on the black market easily? How can you actually avoid giving the guns to those who do not qualify when it is so easy to get a gun?

The only way I can see that happening is a major overhaul in the American education system or some secondary form of education and a dramatic decrease in poverty. It is true that most who own guns do not commit crimes with those guns, but you can not ignore that guns make it easier for those who will become a criminal.

I am confused about where majority of Americans limit their "god-given rights".

 

[MontyB]

I am confused about where majority of Americans limit their "god-given rights".

See eventually you will reach the same conclusion most of us did ages ago, as a nation you will not solve the problem of people shooting people because you don't want to, in the end the only response acceptable to a reasonably sized group of people is to put more guns into circulation which oddly enough is what is causing the problem.

Basically as a nation nothing will change until you break the "cult of the firearm" that exists there.

So a few weeks maybe a couple of months from now there will be another mass shooting and there will be another post about how terrible it is and what can be done and we will have this conversation all over again with the same responses.

I will adopt a more Kiwi approach, I live a relatively sane country with relatively sane laws about firearms I really no longer care how often you lot try and kill each other as long as you do not try and export ideas.

 

[Yossarian]

So a few weeks maybe a couple of months from now there will be another mass shooting and there will be another post about how terrible it is and what can be done and we will have this conversation all over again with the same responses.

Like clockwork it seems,

However count me out on the next thread, as am about to retire from this topic entirely upon the next tidal wave or media coverage to hit the headlines.

I know the source now, just look around at outside at all the bewildered people with necks crained towards their News Aps and Television sets.

I really no longer care how often you lot try and kill each other as long as you do not try and export ideas.

Guilty as charged.

Name one major of civilization that has not tried to impress their ideology on another group of people in human history.

Thousand years from now American's ideological approach may just be another post-it-note in said history.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Guilty as charged.

Name one major of civilization that has not tried to impress their ideology on another group of people in human history.

Thousand years from now American's ideological approach may just be another post-it-note in said history.

lol there is no nation that has not tried to impress their ideals on another group.

 

[-- Dusty]

What we or rather the Americans need to do is to establish a system so the can use the 2nd A and limit the access to firearms for the few (in the US they are many) the 2nd A cannot be for all. I have been thinking of two ways; the first is to have a psychologist evaluate every gun owner and continue to do so over the space of time. Then the storage or firearms in people homes, perhaps more strict regulations about that, and we haven't touched the 2nd A.

How does the 2nd A in the US affect you?

You havn't seen what is happening here. They started regulating the RKBA, and now they are regulating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, they can invade anyone home without a warrant and without cause and not get in trouble.... that may be just fine for you in your country, but that is beyond what is acceptable here.

 

[RayManKiller3]

How does the 2nd A in the US affect you?

You havn't seen what is happening here. They started regulating the RKBA, and now they are regulating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, they can invade anyone home without a warrant and without cause and not get in trouble.... that may be just fine for you in your country, but that is beyond what is acceptable here.

I don't think it is correct to say because it do not affect him, he should not care. If this was so, shouldn't we butt out of Syria, China, etcs. business?


Can you tell me what state allows police to "invade anyone's home without a warrant"? I do not recall any. I know you can be stopped by police officers based on suspicion.

I believe in freedom, but you must realize there will be consequences or rewards for one's actions. One can not simply say anything they want and expect no ill-results. Too much freedom and people become undisciplined, this is a fact. As far as I know freedom of speech has always been regulated since media.

I would also like to know what do you mean regulating freedom of religion? Do you mean national recognition of said religion? Do you mean not being able to pray in class or something?

 

[Yossarian]

I would also like to know what do you mean regulating freedom of religion? Do you mean national recognition of said religion? Do you mean not being able to pray in class or something?

I am also curious of how this got thrown in with this topic as well.

For any discussion of religon in conjunction with firearms never really ends well.

 

[VDKMS]

My freedom stops where your freedom starts.
Absolute freedom is a jungle.

 

[Yossarian]

"The cost of freedom is always high."

Love it or hate it.

 

[RayManKiller3]

My freedom stops where your freedom starts.
Absolute freedom is a jungle.

^^

Completely this! People need to understand where freedom ends otherwise others can claim freedom and it expands to anarchy. Rights to do this, rights to do that, come on people... When do these "rights" end.

I am not completely for or against the 2nd amendment, but I don't agree more guns = less crime. It lacks common sense in that the more weapons you give to people the more people will use it irresponsibly, same goes for nukes. Complete removal or even a slight change to the 2nd amendment will not happen in the foreseeable future. I wish our forefathers didn't lack such oversight... They feared and hated big government to the point now our own people is the problem.

 

[Yossarian]

^^

They feared and hated big government to the point now our own people is the problem.

Jackboot's vs. Jackasses.

You have to pick a side because you can't have both.

Let's for a moment at least touch basis on the home defense nuts out there for a short spit of my opinionated statements...*maybe I should be a reporter?*

Let's for a second put concealed carriers in every home in America, every last apartment to two story house with a picket fence.

But let's look at some seldom mentioned trends.

* Criminals don't stay in crime ridden areas, it makes sense from a invader standpoint to pick a higher income area.

* Criminals only want your valuables. Also false, they also want you guns, the ones you leave in your truck, shed or wherever you fasley deem secure, once escaping you have lost not only your firearm, but compound this fact with the trend that seldom owners keep up with their serial numbers, but now you have also armed a criminal for future commission of crimes.

* Criminals are completley dettered by the fact you practise and carry. False, some people are in fact so derranged not to flee if you brandish a weapon at them, forcing you, the defender of your home to make some very very split second decsions that can either get you killed or serving a life term for 1st degree.

Especially if the thug has buddy to testify against you. Or he can survive and sue you.

* Criminals won't rob an armed populace. This is the biggest false notion. Take a look at a warzone for a moment. During the Iraq war, militants with no formal military training would sometimes seek engaging a heavily armed and highly trained military power, like the U.S. or British armed forces deployed there.

Point is, they would often steal equippment and weapons from wounded or killed fighting men for their own use.

Figure this, even in extreme circumstances, if sometimes illiterate part time militants are willing to risk death against a world power because they want something.

Then what stops your neighbor hood thug from crawling in your window? Whether you implore them or not?

Especially with a hardened criminal fresh out of incarceration without anything to loose for instance.

My underlining message here, is crime adapts just like the armed defender adapts.

If we had weapons in every home, we would have armed criminals at every window at almost every break in.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Jackboot's vs. Jackasses.

You have to pick a side because you can't have both.

Let's for a moment at least touch basis on the home defense nuts out there for a short spit of my opinionated statements...*maybe I should be a reporter?*

Let's for a second put concealed carriers in every home in America, every last apartment to two story house with a picket fence.

But let's look at some seldom mentioned trends.

* Criminals don't stay in crime ridden areas, it makes sense from a invader standpoint to pick a higher income area.

* Criminals only want your valuables. Also false, they also want you guns, the ones you leave in your truck, shed or wherever you fasley deem secure, once escaping you have lost not only your firearm, but compound this fact with the trend that seldom owners keep up with their serial numbers, but now you have also armed a criminal for future commission of crimes.

* Criminals are completley dettered by the fact you practise and carry. False, some people are in fact so derranged not to flee if you brandish a weapon at them, forcing you, the defender of your home to make some very very split second decsions that can either get you killed or serving a life term for 1st degree.

Especially if the thug has buddy to testify against you. Or he can survive and sue you.

* Criminals won't rob an armed populace. This is the biggest false notion. Take a look at a warzone for a moment. During the Iraq war, militants with no formal military training would sometimes seek engaging a heavily armed and highly trained military power, like the U.S. or British armed forces deployed there.

Point is, they would often steal equippment and weapons from wounded or killed fighting men for their own use.

Figure this, even in extreme circumstances, if sometimes illiterate part time militants are willing to risk death against a world power because they want something.

Then what stops your neighbor hood thug from crawling in your window? Whether you implore them or not?

Especially with a hardened criminal fresh out of incarceration without anything to loose for instance.

My underlining message here, is crime adapts just like the armed defender adapts.

If we had weapons in every home, we would have armed criminals at every window at almost every break in.

Lol, that is why I am completely against the theory guns reduce crimes. Of course if guns are everywhere it means the criminals are definately going to be armed when they attempt a crime.

The fact is you can stop/reduce significantly mass slayings such as Virginia Tech by banning firearms. Of course then they would use something else like knives, but do you realize how difficult (if not impossible) it would be to kill 30 people out in the open with a knife?

This is why I lean more to banning firearms, especially hanguns, which serve no purpose other then to kill other humans. Of course I am completely in touch with reality that I do not believe I will see such a day in U.S. Anyone who dares touch or hint at touching the U.S will not be elected. Thanks to this stubborness, we will always have crime like these at ratios much higher than those who ban firearms.

 

[MontyB]

Banning firearms will only make the situation worse and banning specific firearms is just plain silly as you can kill someone with a musket just as easily as you can kill them with an AK, to solve the problem you need to change the way people think and act just as has been done with things like drink driving.

In the end however you will never stop people killing each other no matter what you do all you can realistically achieve is to minimise the problem.

 

[BritinBritain]

Lol, that is why I am completely against the theory guns reduce crimes. Of course if guns are everywhere it means the criminals are definately going to be armed when they attempt a crime.

Where is your proof or is this just your opinion?

The fact is you can stop/reduce significantly mass slayings such as Virginia Tech by banning firearms.

The gun ban at Virginia Tech didn't stop Cho Seung-Hui killing 32 people, in fact the gun ban left those murdered defenceless. The thing you need to remember, "Only the law abiding obey gun bans, criminals don't." Banning anything does not work, the US 18th Amendment is a prime example where drunkenness actually increased by over 30% and led to the rise of the Mafia. The thing that annoys me with anti's is, they never think things through properly. For example there was a discussion in Britain's Parliament regarding the conversion of semi auto rifle to fully auto (when they were legally allowed), an MP stated, "If anyone has the knowledge and the equipment to commit a crime, that person shall be deemed guilty of that crime." Then an opposition MP pointed out, "If that were the case, every male in the Kingdom can be convicted of rape."

This is why I lean more to banning firearms, especially hanguns, which serve no purpose other then to kill other humans. Of course I am completely in touch with reality that I do not believe I will see such a day in U.S. Anyone who dares touch or hint at touching the U.S will not be elected. Thanks to this stubborness, we will always have crime like these at ratios much higher than those who ban firearms.

Absolute rubbish. UIT, combat shooting, silhouette shooting all take place with handguns and requires a lot of skill. Shooting is also one of the few sports where the physically handicapped can compete with able bodied persons equally.

Banning handguns will only affect the law abiding, which means they will be defenceless against armed criminals who will get what they want, when they want.

 

[Yossarian]

Banning firearms will only make the situation worse and banning specific firearms is just plain silly as you can kill someone with a musket just as easily as you can kill them with an AK, to solve the problem you need to change the way people think and act just as has been done with things like drink driving.

In the end however you will never stop people killing each other no matter what you do all you can realistically achieve is to minimise the problem.

Agreed , people will be people, and I do not know a single type of firearm today that autonomously goes around killing people without a trigger puller.

Driving kills people as well, but our society would collaspe if you told them no more motor vehicles.

It's really just evident now it's a mindset, a behaviour, it's almost child like in some regards.

 

[Yossarian]

I hate to double post.

But news just flashed this on every major media outlet.

"Crazed Gunmen in body armor shoots 4 in Arizonia".

My reply: how is the weather in New Zealand this time of year?

 

[MontyB]

Hmm well it is fine and sunny but rather chilly right now.



One thing to remember in all this is that you have 300 million people and we have 4.2 million so even though you have more crazies by volume we have just as many per capita.