Guncrazy USA

Like I said, since the collapse of communism Russia has had immense problems with organised crime. Even if opportunistic street crime is low (and that quote only mentions Moscow, Russia a very large country), there are very high rates of gang violence. This would probably account for the high murder rate. If guns were more widely available I'm sure the murder rate would be even higher...

 

Britain got rid of the "self defence" justification for gun ownership in 1946, many other countries still have it. I don't think I'm realistically proposing that ownership of a gun for self defence be made illegal in the States right away - given the USA's gun culture it's unrealistic. What I do propose is stricter checks (medical and police checks, with a home visit and inteview), demonstration of genuine need, limiting the amount of guns people can buy and how quickly they can get them. If you want a gun to protect your property, you should be allowed just ONE gun for that purpose. If you hunt or are a member of a gun club, activity-appropriate guns can be licensed one by one according to need.

Yes I know it's not unrestricted, I was using that as shorthand just as you say that Britain has a "ban" on guns; neither of which are strictly accurate. When a young man with mental health problems can legally buy two semi automatic handguns within a month or so, I'd say that's effectively unrestricted gun ownership!

 

When I got home and logged on to this thread I couldn't believe what I read. Well done to everyone involved. This wasn't just civil debate. It was like reading a good newspaper.

This idea of implementing a mandatory thorough check on the purchaser of a firearm is a very sensible proposition. I hope the politicians will take note. I think most people would agree and I urge all students to contemplate this idea discuss it with your fellow students and tutors at campus, and campaign so that the politicians will discuss it in Congress.

Perhaps anyone who is concerned can say so, so that we can start emailing congressmen around the country. I believe there is a solution, although it's a tough one. By discussing things and focusing on the problem we can take a step in solving it. It has been a difficult debate, and it takes a lot of patience as we sometimes lose our rag with each other, especially since the tragedy was very stressful. If "we" feel like these, I can't imagine for one second what those poor parents and fellow students and tutors are going through.

I am sure that most of you must feel the same way. Obviously, to allow life to continue without any action on making schools and universities safer would be an insult to the memory of those lost lives, but I also think that a good example has been set (finally) in this forum of what can be achieved through diplomacy and working together for a common goal, even though we may disagree on the approach to the solution.

 

Pitt

“The fact is that medical records are not required to be entered into the NICS system because of privacy issues. This information can be voluntarily given to the NICS and they will enter it into the system, but its just not required. Although I am pro-gun I would support legislation to make this a mandatory reporting. Its not like the NICS is a public accessable thing.”

Well I’m glad that you seem to have come around to my way of thinking although the proposal I put forward a while ago (and which you originally thought good) would be much more thorough.

It would mean that anyone wishing to buy a gun would first need to pass a psychological evaluation and gain a certificate saying they were stable enough to own a gun. It would be a bit like a driving licence and people would have to produce a valid certificate before being able to purchase a weapon.

**

“I would prefer not having a disaffected youth. If that miricle can be accomplished there would be no worry about guns or any other violent crime.”

It seems to me that other people here like myself see guns as just one part in a complex socio-economic problem, and so don’t see gun regulation as a separate issue but as just one rung on a ladder to a better society.

But however vocal and vociferous you are in defence of gun ownership you never seem to give much thought to how else besides wider gun ownership as a means of suppression you would bring in to deal with the socio-economic situations that seems to be behind a lot of the problems in US society.



**

 

Fair point, but would he of easily killed 32 people without a gun?

 

Given a sword or any other sharp object it is very possible. It is impossible to defend yourself against a knife attack so I'm sure that someone with a sword or knife could kill that number of people in a longer amount of time.

 

Just incase you really are mentally deficient lets take it real slow huh?

USA population 300 million
UK Population 60 million

to turn the uk into the usa we multiply all its figures by 5 times
to turn the usa population into the uk population we divide its figures by 5 times

ok so in britain we get 1100 murders per year by every means
so if britain had a population the size of the usa we could multiply the figure by 5 times which means we now have a murder rate of 5,500 in a 300 million population, to get the same figure as the usa the uk would have to have a figure of 10,000 murders per year in a population of 60 million, that is 10 times the current trend and is not likely to ever become that high

ok so if the usa with its population of 300 million had british murder rates you would currently be experiencing 5,000 murders per year instead of 50,000

ok now please just get it into your brain that its that friggin simple otherwise I will have to suspect you are a troll or something like a retard

No it hasn't !! you are making this up as you go along

 

The system I proposed was basically a version of what we have in the UK - it's not a ban, but it is an additional safety net. If you want a gun in the UK for valid reasons, you can get one (except of course certain types or for reasons of self defence, but that's another matter. I'm not proposing a handgun ban or a 'self-defence' ban for the States yet. It took us a long time to get to that stage, and America will be just starting down that path.)

Of course it is not going to catch everyone, or be a perfect system, but the point is it will catch some. Impractical? A burden? It works pretty well in the UK, and frankly a little extra bureacracy and making people wait a little longer to go through the proper checks and have an interview with a police officer are a TINY price to pay when you consider that such restrictions may well have caught Cho Seung, and that such a system will begin saving lives.

If you believe in principle that we need to check that someone is safe to own a gun before allowing them to buy one (in terms of mental health at least), it's just a short further step to accepting that more thorough checks that the person is going to be a responsible gun owner are a very good idea before we start giving them deadly weapons.

 

Yes. And the system I proposed was one along the lines of the UK system, which is a sensible middle ground between the two. We don't have yearly psychological checks in the UK and we supposedly have some of the strictest laws in the world. When someone applies for a gun license we have rigourous multi-agency and medical checks, character references, inspection of property and a face to face interview with a firearms officer. Each gun must be applied for separately and license granted on the basis of demonstrated genuine need. If the person wants a high powered rifle for sport or a hobby - is the person a member of a gun club? We can check these things. I'm not talking about a prohibitively expensive or intrusive system, just sensible checks to ensure that the owner is genuinely responsible, and that they have a genuine requirement for these types of weapons. That's what we have in the UK, and it works pretty well.

 

A firearms license costs about £50 ($90), the checks are in theory paid for by the revenue raised from licensing, though I suspect it's partially subsidised; it's a routine part of police duty.

 

Absolutely. That cost is per weapon and needs renewing - not sure over what time frame it's valid, perhaps four or five years? But the point is these simple measures are ones most responsible gun owners should agree with anyway - it's a slight inconvenience, of course, but if it saves one life it was worth it. I agree the medical records thing should be implemented immediately, it would be so easy to do. It's a first step. The USA has a massive problem with guns; it will take more than that to solve it, and it will take a long time. But something needs to change.

 

Does anyone have a genuine need for 16 guns?

 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

Lithium you dont know what the fuck you are talking about, some things you are saying dont add up - are you really from britain? how can you be - you dont know much about personal protection laws.

There isnt a ban on self defence in the UK, infact the law now says that intruders on your property can now be met with enough force to kill them, but only if you use reasonable force and did not plan to kill them, , and only if you feel threatened. in other words if you use enough force to kill them no-one will bat an eyelid so long as you didnt chase after them to kill them but killed them because they were violent or you feared violence and they never left the prtemises when u asked them to

If you use a gun to kill them that is unacceptable unless they are similarly armed

It comes from the case of that farmer that shot the gypo's with a shotgun.
People were outraged that he went to prison. I agree I think if a burglar enters my property I will have no hesitation in smashing their brains in with a hammer. I do not subscribe to the thought that an intruder can expect to be dealt with by the law alone, and neither do I subscribe to the thought that intruders should be shot, but I do subscribe to the thought that if I kill an intruder on my property then I should not have to face the law as a criminal.

 

Might be a plan to actually read the thread before making these kinds of statements. The discussion was about gun ownership. The title of the thread perhaps might have given you a clue. The quote to which you refer was a simple statement of the fact that self defence is not a valid reason to be granted permission to own a gun in the UK.

 

What utter gash. Given that the gun culture and the almost unlimited availability of guns in the States causes such a vast number of problems and results in a hugely disproportianate number of murders, this idea that it is every citizen's inalienable right to own vast quantities of deadly and dangerous weapons is facile. Why do we restrict the rights of ordinary people from owning weapons grade plutonium? Because it's so dangerous. Do you think everyone should have the right to own artillery pieces, miniguns, helicopter gunships, nuclear weapons because the government does not have any right to restrict our access to anything on the basis that it may cause problems for wider society? This is the logic of your argument. Slippery slope? What tosh. Your argument is a nonsense.

 

That was going to be my next question - to ask if they were securely locked up, and as long as they are I don't see a problem with that in principle. The only answer I imagined to my question of who "needs" so many guns was 'those who shoot competitively'.

Shotguns are covered by a different license here in the UK because they are required by farmers, one license allows you to own as many shotguns (maximum three round capacity) as you like and the laws are more lenient than for firearms.

What the UK laws would force you to do in practice is get rid of the weapons you no longer need, or get them deactivated - you could argue this would lead to less of a risk in the event they ever got stolen, on the basis that the fewer deadly weapons of this type lying around there are, the better. A weapons cache like that is a prime target for a targeted professional burglary! Although owning so many in the first place would probably not be permitted, unless you're a professional sportsman. There are different laws for antique guns as well I believe.

 

Well that's a whole other kettle of worms. Defensive use of weapons is illegal in this country and has been for a long time, he shot the unarmed burglar in the back as he was trying to get away, plus the shotgun was owned without a shotgun license, so yeah I'd say there's no doubt he should have been convicted for what he did. It's a pretty clear cut case.

In more borderline cases it's a more difficult principle to grapple with, but given the fact that we don't have a gun culture or much of a problem with guns, and you can be pretty sure that burglars will not generally be armed, I'd say it's completely right in principle in this society at this time that we should restrict the right to own weapons for defensive reasons, and convct those who use them in this way when they are under no threat. Such people as Martin are causing the most harm in the situation and should be held to account for it.

The USA has a diffierent attitude to property and to life so what works here may not be applicable to the USA given its current culture, but as a principle to aim for I think UK law is a pretty good example.

 

I quite like the Norwegian gun laws, you must be a member of a marksmans club, a licensed hunter or a member of the millitary forces to be allowed to have weapons in your home. Furthermore, all weapons must be registered and you must have a police approval for any weapon purchase.

And even if you are a new member of a marksmans club you must be a member for two (I do believe) years before you are allowed to own your own gun, and in those two first years of membership you are only allowed to use .22cal handguns/rifles.

In my opinion this is as close to as it sould be. A complete ban on weaponry for all civilized personell would be for the best.

 

Proud

The US does execute a lot of people as a means of deterrent and intimidation and although the events might not be done in the town square the media make sure people know it’s happening.

The US prison system is accused of accepting practises that many equate with torture ( and I’ve been told that what went on in Abu Ghraib is common in the US penal system) and for many Americans torture is acceptable. This again seems to be used as a form of intimidation.

Many Americans accept self curfew or segregation not going out in some areas after dark or even keeping out of some area totally. But why are some places that dangerous?

The US government is putting people on trial with not only no right to a jury but even with no right to know the evidence against them. Again this is intimidation but on a global scale.

The question is why do Americans accept these things within their society and why are they not seemingly working towards ending them?