Gun Laws

[newtogolf]

I see the problem being one of change issues, and people being scared of change

The facts and figures prove beyond reasonable doubt that when england banned guns after a massacre, we have had no more massacres, the recently posted figures of gun deaths in Japan compared to the USA, the facts dont lie,......Less guns equals less deaths, PERIOD

 

So why are Americans so afraid to change?

Many arguments are of the 2nd amendment, an outdated article that in itself was ahem "amended" meaning it could always be changed again you know?, it was written with the idea that the common man could protect himself from the government, the army, whoever,.........im not being funny but in 2015 if you still think that 1) that concept will ever happen or 2) you stand a chance with your gun against a battalion of trained warriors, then you have deeper issues than your toys being taken off you

 

The other argument I see is the "there are too many, we cant change it",.......thats just plain pathetic, when theres a will theres a way, if you want to change something you can do it,....you abolished slavery didnt you? you gave women the right to vote? of course there will still be "illegal guns" but that doesnt stop you from trying, your supposed to be the most advanced economic power on the planet and yet this seems an insurmountable issue for you?

 

nothin will ever change anyway so i dont see why people are still debating it

 

 

Because it's only been 235 years since we had to fight for our independence from England and guns are what enabled us to win. 

Also because our government hasn't given us any reason to believe that once we give up our guns criminals will give up theirs.  Without tougher penalties for using guns during the commission of crimes we have no chance in seeing a reduction in guns here. 

Lastly, the congress, senate and POTUS still walk around surrounded by heavily armed individuals, there's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to protect ourselves if our elected officials are protected by guns.    

[imsys0042]

OK, so having read all the posts (some great points rasied guys), we know that gun ownership will probably never be banned. At the end of the day its not the gun thats the problem, is just an inanimate object, its the squishy thing stuck on the end of it that can make it dangerous.

So what can be done?

many people in europe have this idea that in the US you can walk into your local Wallmart (other retailers are available) and buy a gun and walk out. IN reality (and according to American Guns on discovery ) there are checks done before the sale can go through especially on the larger calibre weapons (who the hell needs a .50 cal Barrett?)

So should potential buyers be given a Psychiatric evaluation (similar to those given to Soldiers in here in the UK)?

What do people do in the UK who work for a company that provides security, or who might hunt out in the country?   I've seen enough of the UK to know that people hunt, or at least used to.   Are they allowed a gun for that?

I think, to a lot of people, the main point is to have a strict restriction on guns.   Not an outright ban on them totally.   Specifically any type of automatic weapon and a lot of people don't think that people should be carrying handguns.   However rifles for hunting and people who need it to do their jobs (non-police) there are reasonable asks.  

There's a cultural issue with getting an evaluation like that, that is present in the US.  From very early on in this country there is a lot of feeling that the government should be minimal and not intrusive in peoples' lives.  Much of the concepts are derived from property ownership.   Although there are plenty of people who swing the other way, that has been a long standing hallmark of American life.   Good or bad, many people resist any oversight and there is a strong emphasis on personal independence and responsibility.   Not that that isn't present elsewhere, but it guides policies and laws here more than in other parts of the world.

 

[carpediem4300]

Because it's only been 235 years since we had to fight for our independence from England and guns are what enabled us to win. 

Also because our government hasn't given us any reason to believe that once we give up our guns criminals will give up theirs.  Without tougher penalties for using guns during the commission of crimes we have no chance in seeing a reduction in guns here. 

Lastly, the congress, senate and POTUS still walk around surrounded by heavily armed individuals, there's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to protect ourselves if our elected officials are protected by guns.    

Guns werent the sole reason you won, you also have to thank the french,.....that aside 235 years is a long time, and things evolve, its an old argument that holds no weight in modern day society,.....the british wont be invading anytime soon

I would whole heartedly agree, there is no one line fix for this, things have to go hand in hand to balance things out,......i still refer you to the figures though, less guns = less deaths, its proven

thats a different argument all together, the types of people that wonder around with armed guards have to do so because of what they stand for and believe in, the pope has to be guarded, the president, they have no more right to protection than you do,............but look at their position in life compared to yours realistically and your argument holds no weight,.....people will assasinate a senate governor or president, the average joe on the street doesnt have this problem

[imsys0042]

Guns werent the sole reason you won, you also have to thank the french,.....that aside 235 years is a long time, and things evolve, its an old argument that holds no weight in modern day society,.....the british wont be invading anytime soon

 

 

That's actually a shame.   We could get BBC Sherlock quicker if you did.

[phillyk]

First, if we wanted to outright all ban guns, it would have to be a federal deployment of officers to every single home in the USA to confiscate all weapons.  Good luck...

The real question is how to get the guns out of the hands of crazy people.  I don't know how.  But what I do know, is for WA state, we recently passed a bill stating that you can get arrested / fined (i don't remember which) if you have in possession a gun that is not registered to you.  Great idea! BUT, it didn't do anything at all. Why? Police can NOT take a gun from a person just to see if it's registered to that person.  A person can willingly give it to an officer to be checked, but they can also legally refuse and the officer can't do a thing about it.  The bill has great intentions, but won't work.  This will be the same for the whole country if they want to make sure guns are registered to the right people.  You want to go around and check peoples mental stability? Great, but they don't have to admit to having a gun that you can take away if they are not stable. That approach won't work unless an officer has reasonable cause to believe they will do harm to another human being and can get a warrant to search them for a weapon.  IDK how you can determine whether they will do harm to another human before the act with enough support for a warrant search.  So you have millions of guns out there and no reasonable way to control who has what.  There'd have to be severe changes made, that won't ever be made.  Now what is the option?  Hope that someone is carrying and knows how to use it when the need arises.

I am absolutely for tighter regulations on buying guns now, and hoping that when not in use, people keep them secured in a safe or whatever.  But, it really sucks, all these people shooting up places.  I just want to be able to protect myself and family if the need ever arises, and I will to the best of my ability.

[Golfingdad]

Gun control is a completely different issue than a background check.   Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from an instant background check when they buy a firearm from a retailer.    Felons and underage gang types who wish to obtain firearms are those that fear instant background checks, which is exactly why the system works so well.

Not at all.  Forcing everybody who wants a gun to go through a background check helps CONTROL who gets guns because the background check will should weed out people who shouldn't have them.

Certainly there are other types of gun control and there are people who are in favor of eliminating them altogether, but that isn't the only type of gun control.  You mention the word fear in your post and I think that is part of the problem.  You (and a lot of others like you) seem to be associating "gun control" with "the democrats are coming to take away all of our guns!!!" and that fear does a disservice to everybody.  If we shut down any opportunity to compromise by plugging our ears and saying "lalalalala" every time we hear the phrase 'gun control' then how are we ever going to get anywhere?

[Gator Hazard]

First, if we wanted to outright all ban guns, it would have to be a federal deployment of officers to every single home in the USA to confiscate all weapons.  Good luck...

 

Even that wouldn't work.  Every gun owner would magically have been robbed just the day or week before and their gun would have been one of the valuables taken.  Or it would have gotten lost. "Sir, we see here that you are a registered hand gun owner, please hand over your .45 S&W and your 9MM Glock weapons please".  "Gentlemen, I know this is hard to believe, but they were lost on a recent camping trip, wish I could help you but if they turn up I will be sure to let you know.  Feel free to search the house however."

Hand gun owners in the US are just not going to give up their guns, it is that plain and simple.  I am all for very strict gun control laws, but I am also realistic, and the reality is that hand guns in the US are not going away anytime soon even if they ban them.  The types of violent crimes we are trying to stop currently are mass shootings and not even a death penalty law on using a gun in the commission of a crime is going to stop this because the perpetrators usually kill themselves when they are done or go for death by cop.  

[Lihu]

I see the problem being one of change issues, and people being scared of change

The facts and figures prove beyond reasonable doubt that when england banned guns after a massacre, we have had no more massacres, the recently posted figures of gun deaths in Japan compared to the USA, the facts dont lie,......Less guns equals less deaths, PERIOD

 

So why are Americans so afraid to change?

Many arguments are of the 2nd amendment, an outdated article that in itself was ahem "amended" meaning it could always be changed again you know?, it was written with the idea that the common man could protect himself from the government, the army, whoever,.........im not being funny but in 2015 if you still think that 1) that concept will ever happen or 2) you stand a chance with your gun against a battalion of trained warriors, then you have deeper issues than your toys being taken off you

 

The other argument I see is the "there are too many, we cant change it",.......thats just plain pathetic, when theres a will theres a way, if you want to change something you can do it,....you abolished slavery didnt you? you gave women the right to vote? of course there will still be "illegal guns" but that doesnt stop you from trying, your supposed to be the most advanced economic power on the planet and yet this seems an insurmountable issue for you?

 

nothin will ever change anyway so i dont see why people are still debating it

 

 

It's highly unlikely that criminals will use less guns because we create laws prohibiting them. Only law abiding citizens will not have them, and that just means more helpless people to victimize.

This latest shooting and the resulting story has actually convinced me that gun laws should be strictly enforced but that more sensible citizens should be carrying them. . .

[phillyk]

Even that wouldn't work.  Every gun owner would magically have been robbed just the day or week before and their gun would have been one of the valuables taken.  Or it would have gotten lost. "Sir, we see here that you are a registered hand gun owner, please hand over your .45 S&W and your 9MM Glock weapons please".  "Gentlemen, I know this is hard to believe, but they were lost on a recent camping trip, wish I could help you but if they turn up I will be sure to let you know.  Feel free to search the house however."

Hand gun owners in the US are just not going to give up their guns, it is that plain and simple.  I am all for very strict gun control laws, but I am also realistic, and the reality is that hand guns in the US are not going away anytime soon even if they ban them.  The types of violent crimes we are trying to stop currently are mass shootings and not even a death penalty law on using a gun in the commission of a crime is going to stop this because the perpetrators usually kill themselves when they are done or go for death by cop.  

I was making that statement to say that it wouldn't ever happen. So yes I would agree with you.  There's no reasonable way to take away guns people already have.

[Gator Hazard]

I was making that statement to say that it wouldn't ever happen. So yes I would agree with you.  There's no reasonable way to take away guns people already have.

I should have stated that I was in complete agreement with you so there was no confusion, I just wanted to take it a step further.  :)

[Braivo]

This latest shooting and the resulting story has actually convinced me that gun laws should be strictly enforced but that more sensible citizens should be carrying them. . .

Same for me. Source.

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

[Pretzel]

An interesting topic is the one of people legally carrying and perfecting others during a shooting. I don't think people realize how inaccurate most shooters/handguns are. I'll provide a little perspective for that. 

In a competition scenario, at 25 yards, the best shooters in the state (in 4-H who grew up shooting their while life) can put 10 rounds into a stationary target the size of a grapefruit or small cantaloupe in approximately 2-3 minutes of slow fire. In rapid fire (shooting one handed, 5 shots in 10 seconds) that grouping spreads to be 18-30 inches wide. The second scenario is more plausible of a grouping in a stressful scenario (since in a real scenario you would always use two hands anyways). Shooting silhouettes (various birds, a pig, and a ram that are all not to scale) the longest target that is reasonably expected to be hit using open sights is the turkey or pig at 60 yards. The ram can be hit at 100, but most use scopes or red dot sights for that if they want to be successful. 

For a carrying individual to be remotely effective, they would need to be within 25 yards of the shooter. They would also need a clear line of fire with nobody directly in front of or behind the shooter (thar 18-30" grouping might not hit him). In addition to that, they need to - obviously - not get shot themselves. The circumstances are pretty specific as to when this could happen, so you'd need an awful lot of the population to be trained (these groupings are all for people who shoot competitively) and carrying for it to make a difference. Most untrained individuals can't put 10 rounds on a paper plate at only 7-10 yards, so that part is very important. 

[iacas]

I think it's still true that something like 95% of gun crimes in the U.S. (or gun deaths, perhaps) are minority-on-minority crimes/murders. This is an economic problem, not a gun control problem. Inner-city people are killing other inner-city people over drugs and other stuff.

Remove that, and suicides, and the U.S. gun crime rates are on par with other countries. Canada has more guns per capita than the U.S. and doesn't have the gun crime problem we have. They're a lot like us, too: it's not like comparing Japanese or Swedish culture (just to pick two fairly different cultures) to our own.

I have two guns. Neither are registered so far as I know, but both required me to complete a background check when I purchased them in the state in which I lived at the time, about 12 years ago. They remain locked up safe and out of the way, but I can get to them and load the 9mm in 30 seconds or less if necessary.

---

Someone said it before, though: nobody's minds are going to be changed. So I'll leave it at that.

[Elmer]

There are a lot of soldiers that come out of the armed forces after their military time is up as well.  I would think that you wouldn't know who it was that was the soldier with the gun, it would help to advertise this as well.  "We are a university that proudly employs ex-military in conjunction with the GI Bill in the role of undercover, armed university marshalls".  I can see a small problem with this as well for some people.

At the high school and lower level it is a lot trickier I guess, I don't know how you do that.  Lots of people not too keen on the idea of teachers being armed, but maybe it could be a janitor or a gym coach or an administrator or two and you have no idea and they are ex military as well.  

If we could hit the reset button I would maybe be okay with it, but we cannot;  just as you have said, there are a lot of "pry the gun out of my cold, dead hand" people.  So we need solutions that work in the environment we are in, and none of them will please everyone.  Whether people are pro or anti guns, one thing is true, guns have certainly complicated things, no solutions are ironclad or easy. 

I see 2 problems with hiring ex military.
1- who pays? Is this a federal, state, county or city hire? Do the schools need to budget and raise their tuition to accommodate. This will increase taxes, tuitions, benefits etc... And we know how people feel about having cost raised?

2- I am not sure if I am comfortable with all educational facilities filled with gun carrying commando types. I envision a Stalinist Russia where there is a Ak-47 holding soldier on every corner.

Are we that unwilling to discuss gun regulation that we would rather have armed guards in all schools?  

Minimal training in martial arts helps women thwart off attackers. So, along those lines if everyone carried a gun or taser that is compatible with their ability and build, there would be less people like this one.

He was wearing body armor from what I understand, but if they all had some form of protection it seems like they wouldn't be totally helpless. I'm sure more people are considering carrying a weapon because of these incidents. It makes sense, and could potentially dissuade more perpetrators of this type.

If that army vet had a gun with him, I'm sure he would have used it on the perp with reasonable effectiveness rather than getting shot 7 times.

There is a big difference between taking a swing at an attacker who is trying to mug you & making a clean shot at a shooter across the room.

I have asked this before, what if the student misses and hits and kills another student? Is this just collateral damage? Is this an acceptable loss?
What is the proposed armed guard (as explained above) shoots and misses. What if they kill an innocent?
Are we willing to accept collateral damage?

[RussUK]

That's actually a shame.   We could get BBC Sherlock quicker if you did.

No probs, i'll try and raise an army asap.......wonder if i can advertise in the local papers 

[Silent]

 

Same for me. Source.

And if you can get that person away from guns, the body count would be 0.0 You keep looking at the issue as being guns vs guns. Wouldn't you prefer a situation that the crazy person doesn't have a gun in the first place. I know it's utopia that nobody has any guns at all, but in this case that person had 13 legal guns. Would you agree with me that somewhere down the road at least something went wrong? And at least that there might be a possibility that there is an other / better solution than 'we have a gun problem, so let's bring in more guns'?

[Lihu]

There is a big difference between taking a swing at an attacker who is trying to mug you & making a clean shot at a shooter across the room.

Not sure how you arrived at this. . .

It's much harder to take someone down in a hand to hand situation especially if the attacker is 50-100 pounds heavier than you. Much easier to shoot them from 10-20 feet. The grouping of an average person shooting an average off the shelf pistol two handed from 30 feet is about 4" with a 20 hours of training or so.

[jusanothajoe]

On 911 thousands were killed and not a single gun was used. Evil men armed with box cutters only. Evil people will find ways to commit evil acts. Do we need to ban box cutters ? Timothy McVey (spelling) killed hundreds with a truck filled with fertilizer. Do we need background checks to buy fertilizer ?

 2013 deaths by ;

Firearms- 33,636

Drug overdose - 43,982