America's shame. Again.

[tinfoilhat]

It's not an argument against it, it's simply a threat. That's exactly what the NRA's motto is, a threat.

When logic fails, bullyboy tactics prevail.

 

 

Seeing as there's no actual record of who has what guns, it'll come down to;

 

1. Many people (possibly a majority, who knows) obeying the law and handing in any guns that have been made illegal.

 

2. Those who ignore it and keep theirs will do so, there is no record in place (as far as I'm aware) of who has what guns. They will either keep their guns quietly and hidden away or they will be found out and have to face the consequences like any other crime.

 

 

I don't think there'd be any bloodshed to be honest, it's not like police would be going house to house across the whole of America with search warrants on the off-chance you might be harbouring an illegal weapon.

It would be a gradual thing, slowly phasing out certain guns, beginning with the sale of them first (don't forget, this has already happened in America with some types of guns, there was no uprising or bloodshed).

 

Again it goes back to American psyche. Most people in the UK don't like or trust our government, in the states great swathes of America really really distrusts their government to the point of outright suspicion. They think their "freedoms" will be taken away if they don't keep vigilant. Sadly keeping vigilant involves buying lots of guns in many cases.

[RootsBooster]

Why hasn't the West marched in to retake Crimea for the Ukraine? Haven't all the Western nations said it's an illegal and immoral annexation? What's holding them back from doing what they clearly believe to be morally right? Of yes, that would be threat. You might not like the reality that threat shapes policy and strategy but it is a fact of life.

Cool story but I'm really not sure what your point is though. We were talking about valid arguments against gun restrictions and I said I've never heard any put forward. By 'valid argument' I meant the traditional notion of it having some structured reasoning or logic. I don't see that a threat qualifies as such.

 

Comparing international war-related conflicts to domestic law acceptance isn't a like for like comparison.

How about if people threatened bloodshed (I wouldn't be surprised if some did some did) when it came to the subject of black people being allowed to sit at the front of the bus? Do you think that they should have kept them sitting at the back to this day for fear of the threats?

 

If you just leave guns deemed illegal in circulation (because the owners may resist you taking them) then what is the point of the new controls? Don't the guns just go off radar and into the underground black market? Won't this mean all the bad guys, gangsters and psychopaths alike, still have access to the weapons? I'm pretty sure they aren't going to be put off doing what they do out of fear they'll be prosecuted for owning an illegal gun. Doesn't the gun lobby have a point when they say it will just end up punishing the innocent?

Some will, no doubt, get in to the criminal world. That happens in every country regardless of their laws. Gangsters will still shoot one another, innocents will get caught up sometimes, but it might happen a little less.

 

The biggest reduction will be in the tragedies that most of these threads are about. Children accidentally killing themselves or others, otherwise law abiding citizens (one day snapping under the weight of depression or stress) shooting their spouse/partner/friends/strangers in a moment of madness that wouldn't have had such destructive results were a gun not present, 'experienced' instructors killed by guns that were way too powerful for the children they hand them to, etc..

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the US imposing better gun controls in principle. I am just question whether it is practical and whether the outcome will be worth the pain. I fear the horse has bolted for them on this one.

It wouldn't be a quick solution, it would take several stages over many years. You could say that it's already been happening for a few years now, the NRA certainly think so. Softly, softly, catchee something...

[glennpickard]

The problem in the US is the lack of gun controls. These are my observations.

 

Some gun purchases have a background check, others don't. eg. at gun shows. The FBI must respond to the gun sellers within 72 hours to say if the applicant has a criminal history or not. If the FBI don't respond within the time, the gun seller can legally then sell to the applicant, without knowing their background !

The US has closed down so many mental hospital facilities over the past few years that patients have no place to go other than prison. With the monthly mass shootings taking place in the US, you can see the results. Many of these mass murderers should have been incarcerated & treated, with no access to guns.

Many political observers say that the National Rifle Assoc. Republican puppets in Congress are the ones directly responsible for this state of affairs in the US. If any responsible politician speaks out for gun control, the NRA immediately starts a propaganda campaign that "Government wants to confiscate your guns !" This scare tactic works every time. Many rifle owners are hunters and believe the NRA propaganda.

The NRA is the principal promoter of gun sales, ably backed up by US gun manufacturers. The American public has not held them to account. The Republicans refuse to allow a vote in Congress on gun control, so thousands of innocent Americans are murdered due to out of control gun violence as a direct result

[Zamo]

Cool story but I'm really not sure what your point is though. We were talking about valid arguments against gun restrictions and I said I've never heard any put forward. By 'valid argument' I meant the traditional notion of it having some structured reasoning or logic. I don't see that a threat qualifies as such.

 

Comparing international war-related conflicts to domestic law acceptance isn't a like for like comparison.

 

The logic seems pretty structured to me - if a policy results in the opposite of the policy intent then it should be considered a bad idea. It works for both foreign and domestic policy alike.

 

How about if people threatened bloodshed (I wouldn't be surprised if some did some did) when it came to the subject of black people being allowed to sit at the front of the bus? Do you think that they should have kept them sitting at the back to this day for fear of the threats?

 

No but you need to consider the risk of ignoring threats on a case by case basis when deciding strategy and policy... the most successful leaders in history all knew that there are times when you need to cower in the face of threat! Not only is it necessary to pick the battles you can win but not to win battles that will cost you the war.

 

It is also worth noting that you can have a minority making threat but their position is still supported by a non-threatening majority. It is an argument you often see with the whole immigration debate where people in support of immigration argue that we must not give in to far right extremists who make threats and ignore the fact the the vast majority of people also want immigration reduced! Same thing with gun control, you can't ignore the fact that roughly half the population still have concerns about the erosion of 'right to bear arms' rights just because there are some that would threaten such a move.

 

Some will, no doubt, get in to the criminal world. That happens in every country regardless of their laws. Gangsters will still shoot one another, innocents will get caught up sometimes, but it might happen a little less.

 

The biggest reduction will be in the tragedies that most of these threads are about. Children accidentally killing themselves or others, otherwise law abiding citizens (one day snapping under the weight of depression or stress) shooting their spouse/partner/friends/strangers in a moment of madness that wouldn't have had such destructive results were a gun not present, 'experienced' instructors killed by guns that were way too powerful for the children they hand them to, etc..

 

It wouldn't be a quick solution, it would take several stages over many years. You could say that it's already been happening for a few years now, the NRA certainly think so. Softly, softly, catchee something...

 

I found some stats from back in 2010 but I guess they will be roughly the same today. It shows that of 31,513 deaths from firearms, the mode of death was: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

 

Even if you eradicated accidental deaths it isn't much of a gain and needs to be weighed up against different 'costs'. How much would it cost to implement and police? How many police might lose their lives (additional homicides) enforcing it? Would sort of social division might it cause? Could it lead to extremist attacks from gun-loving rednecks? How much might policing the threat from extremists cost? How would society feel about the living with another extremist threat to save 600 lives? Could the money and effort deliver a better return on investment than 600 lives if, for example, it was put into provide more free healthcare?

 

Of course, nothing wrong with tightening up on some existing rules and checks as part of a catchee monkey thing. I don't suppose even the NRA would object to psychopaths on day release being more effectively prevented from buying guns!

[cassity]

 

Of course, nothing wrong with tightening up on some existing rules and checks as part of a catchee monkey thing. I don't suppose even the NRA would object to psychopaths on day release being more effectively prevented from buying guns!

 

Yep, psychopaths and NRA in the same sentence. You''ve pretty well summed up the NRA. Don't you think it ironic that the issue with gun control and the tightening of those controls are argued against because it isn't the psychopaths that should be feared but 'law abiding citizens' will or may go on the rampage murdering those with the task of enforcing tighter controls. What is being suggested here is gun owning Americans are sleeping psychopaths who have dummy issues..

[ANGELFIRE1]

Cars aren't supposed to kill people, they have all sorts of safety measures to try and prevent this.

 

On the other hand, the primary purpose and pretty much only reason for the existence of guns is to kill people, that's what they're for.

 

Guns aren't like cars or other 'useful tools that can kill in the wrong hands'

 

Guns are for killing, it's their primary purpose, they can kill extremely easily in any hands.

 

 

Just a minor point, I have had shotguns, small bore rifles and indeed full bore rifles for nigh on 50 years. Odd that in all this time I have never had any desire to use my firearms to hurt any one, except clays, paper targets and legitimate game.

 

As you almost say on your post, guns do not kill anyone ever (they are inanimate), until they fall into the wrong hands.

 

If a comparison were to be done, more people in our Country are killed by cars, motorcycles, trains, buses, aeroplanes, drugs, alcohol, and fags, maybe we should ban them all AND guns.

 

Angel1.

[tinfoilhat]

Just a minor point, I have had shotguns, small bore rifles and indeed full bore rifles for nigh on 50 years. Odd that in all this time I have never had any desire to use my firearms to hurt any one, except clays, paper targets and legitimate game.

 

As you almost say on your post, guns do not kill anyone ever (they are inanimate), until they fall into the wrong hands.

 

If a comparison were to be done, more people in our Country are killed by cars, motorcycles, trains, buses, aeroplanes, drugs, alcohol, and fags, maybe we should ban them all AND guns.

 

Angel1.

 

Yes, I have a friend in America and he takes his daughter to work on a shotgun and another who owns a courier business where they ride around on 9mm glocks.Hopefully I'll fly out there using AR15......you should be now getting why your argument is bobbins if not you are the ghost of Charlton Heston and I claim my £5.

[Zamo]

Yes, I have a friend in America and he takes his daughter to work on a shotgun and another who owns a courier business where they ride around on 9mm glocks.Hopefully I'll fly out there using AR15......you should be now getting why your argument is bobbins if not you are the ghost of Charlton Heston and I claim my £5.

 

I'm the ghost of Charlton Heston!!

[sgtkate]

Just a minor point, I have had shotguns, small bore rifles and indeed full bore rifles for nigh on 50 years. Odd that in all this time I have never had any desire to use my firearms to hurt any one, except clays, paper targets and legitimate game.

 

As you almost say on your post, guns do not kill anyone ever (they are inanimate), until they fall into the wrong hands.

 

If a comparison were to be done, more people in our Country are killed by cars, motorcycles, trains, buses, aeroplanes, drugs, alcohol, and fags, maybe we should ban them all AND guns.

 

Angel1.

 

Have you ever been convicted of a firearms offence? Do you have mental health issues? Do you allow children access to them without thought? Are they left outside of a locked gun safe when not in use? No?

These are consequences of gun restriction laws. Guns are not illegal here and they should not be illegal in USA either, but the rules regarding their ownership needs serious tightening up.