America's shame. Again.

[Nagel]

A three year old Chicago boy accidentally shot in the head and killed by his six year old brother.

 

Mind numbingly awful is the research by the Washington Post showing that 43 people have been shot by kids younger than three - this year alone, so far.

 

More here from the Indy - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-being-shot-in-head-by-six-year-old-brother-a6698711.html

 

 

The more people shout about this and shame America publicly, the more likely it is that they'll eventually take their heads out of their backsides and act.

 

Where do you hope to go with this discussion? The majority of Brits will agree that gun ownership is best restricted and controlled.

[Happ Hazzard]

You always jump from one argument to another and they never seem connected.

 

1. The OP didnt talk about banning. If you had fewer guns in circulation then there would be fewer incidents of gun + upset person= shooting. Why? Because large groups of people respect the law and want to remain within it. Clearly its worked here and in many other developed nations.

You're right, if there was fewer guns in circulation there would be fewer shooting incidents. But banning or resticting guns wouldn't result in there being fewer guns in circulation anymore than banning or restricting street drugs resulting in those being circulated less, nor did banning or restricting alcohol. Some people would abide by the law but many wouldn't, and as a result you'd be making criminals out of people that are currently law-abiding, and you'd also be creating a massive black market in guns for criminals to make billions of dollars out of, with all the associated crime and cost of trying to enforce these new laws. It wouldn't work, at all.

[tinfoilhat]

Where do you hope to go with this discussion? The majority of Brits will agree that gun ownership is best restricted and controlled.

 

He's trolling - chuck out a thread then run off. Standard stuff really - I'm annoyed I bit.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2015 at 23:31 ----------

 

You're right, if there was fewer guns in circulation there would be fewer shooting incidents. But banning or resticting guns wouldn't result in there being fewer guns in circulation anymore than banning or restricting street drugs resulting in those being circulated less, nor did banning or restricting alcohol. Some people would abide by the law but many wouldn't, and as a result you'd be making criminals out of people that are currently law-abiding, and you'd also be creating a massive black market in guns for criminals to make billions of dollars out of, with all the associated crime and cost of trying to enforce these new laws. It wouldn't work, at all.

 

Now that's twaddle. You're assuming that every legal gun owning American will keep their firearms come a ban or heavy restriction, which as I mentioned, is twaddle. they'd mostly keep within the law. You can't compare drugs with guns.

[999tigger]

He's trolling - chuck out a thread then run off. Standard stuff really - I'm annoyed I bit.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2015 at 23:31 ----------

 

 

Now that's twaddle. You're assuming that every legal gun owning American will keep their firearms come a ban or heavy restriction, which as I mentioned, is twaddle. they'd mostly keep within the law. You can't compare drugs with guns.

 

You are right, also save yourself the bother.

[buck]

Where do you hope to go with this discussion? The majority of Brits will agree that gun ownership is best restricted and controlled.

I don't think that one person in 20,000,000 Americans knows nor yet gives a monkey's or even knows what Sheffield and particularly Halibut suggests about our gun problems. I don't own a gun, never needed one, but I believe anyone living in an area with very limited policing is entitled to have a legal firearm with regular training in its use and storage. Can we please, at some time, get off this subject and find another country to attack. I'm sure there are worse places in the world. You might need our help again, if old Putin has his way.

[999tigger]

I don't think that one person in 20,000,000 Americans knows nor yet gives a monkey's or even knows what Sheffield and particularly Halibut suggests about our gun problems. I don't own a gun, never needed one, but I believe anyone living in an area with very limited policing is entitled to have a legal firearm with regular training in its use and storage. Can we please, at some time, get off this subject and find another country to attack. I'm sure there are worse places in the world. You might need our help again, if old Putin has his way.

 

It's Sheffield forum, they can discuss what they like.

Suggesting to people not to talk about something means they will talk about it.

I'm not attacking you, sp no need to be so defensive.

[Happ Hazzard]

Now that's twaddle. You're assuming that every legal gun owning American will keep their firearms come a ban or heavy restriction, which as I mentioned, is twaddle. they'd mostly keep within the law.

What makes you think that?

[cassity]

What makes you think that?

 

Because most Americans are law abiding..

[flamingjimmy]

I'd have a handgun if it were legal in UK. I wouldn't use it for killing. I'd use it for target shooting. It is a lot of fun.

I have had several shotguns for many many years and I still haven't killed anyone. I haven't even shot anyone.

 

Doesn't change what guns are for, they are for killing.

 

---------- Post added 19-10-2015 at 00:51 ----------

 

If Americans wanted to ban gun ownership they would . The fact they havnt tells you they want to own guns.

 

Plus, its non of our business.

 

By that reasoning we should never ever discuss anything that ever happens in any other country that is a democracy.

 

I hope you realise that is silly.

[Happ Hazzard]

Because most Americans are law abiding..

When they agree with the law. I honestly think you'd have major problems enforcing major restrictions on guns on people who feel like they need them to protect themselves and their family. But this discussion is going nowhere, nobodys mind is going to be changed and I really don't see it happening anyway, it'd be a major vote loser for whichever party tried to do it.