US Gun laws

I did not know the NRA was so powerfull - i just googled it lol But i dont buy the terrorism argument although i i can see how the NRA mite use that to argue their case. Would guns have helped on 9/11? or the Oklahoma bomber, or the first world trade centre bomb? Terrorists dont use small arms in attacks much these days its all about explosions, chemicals ect

 

I thought the NRA was just a gun club Looks like you were right too Loofa
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-indicates-Obama-push-stricter-gun-laws.html

Not the best pics of Obama there....

 

I respect other peoples opinion on any subject. I don't have to agree with them.
My opinion is that if anyone thinks it's a good idea to sell handguns and the like to the general public, then they've got a screw loose.

 

If I understand correctly (and I might not), the main difference is not so much that the yanks can have guns and we can't, its more about our laws in terms of having a gun that's ready to fire.

UK gun laws, apart from restricting the types of guns you can own, and then making you get a firearms license for it, which requires you to explain why you want it, also dictate how the gun and its ammo are stored.

The gun has to be kept in one locked metal box in one room, with the ammo in a separate metal box in a separate room (that's oversimplifying of course, there are provisions for you to actually use it).

The point of that part of the law, as I understand it, is twofold. Firstly, it makes it harder to steal. Secondly, it means you have to think about what you're doing. If you flip out into a rage, then by the time you've found the key for the first box, got the gun out, walked to the other room, unlocked the box with the ammo etc, there is a chance you might have come to your senses. Whereas in the US, its fine to have a gun locked and loaded, and ready to go. It means you can just use it without pausing to think.

 

Its on the news just now. In response to the latest terrible shooting, gun sales have risen 25%. The cinema owners are saying that if some of the audience had been carrying guns, they could have shot the gun man before he shot so many people. Great, if we're talking trained marksmen. SAS in the audience who remain totally calm and can make an accurate and decisive shot. As opposed to ordinary people who will go into a blind panic and start unleashing hell all over the place without being able to steady themselves to take aim and without pausing to think who they might hit instead when they miss their intended target.

 

thought this should be brought back up for debating the current events

 

A bloke armed with a hammer could do a lot of damage, but nowhere near as much as one armed with a gun.

Likewise, a country with an army can do a lot of damage, but nowhere near as much as one armed with Nuclear Missiles.

Now lets think. If a country proves its self, time and time again, unable to restrict access to guns to people that go mental with them, should they be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction as well?????

 

This is a subject that makes me so sad on so many levels. It really frustrates me that every time a massacre of innocents happens, and its happened many times in the US, people will still turn round and argue that its ok for the average person to have not just guns in their house, but military type ones. I'm going to try to put forward my reasoning, then I'm going to try to resist temptation to discuss it further because it upsets me. I'll try to counter the 'standard arguments in favour'.

To those who say its only nutters that kill, and not guns: The evidence shows otherwise. It may be a nutter that has the intention, but you can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Over the span of my life thus far, I have on rare but multiple occasions had to physical engage people who have flipped out and attacked. Not muggers, not random aggressors, just nutters. The most embarrassing such incident happened right in the middle of Redcar high street in the middle of the afternoon, when a very twisted lad I knew who went round dressed in army uniform (he was convinced he was a marine - he wasn't, he was a nutter) attacked with everything he had, from behind, and actually tried to snap my neck. Lucky for me he was merely average in physical strength, and so was I, so in the following few minutes of very physical struggle, I managed to overpower and restrain him. How lucky am I that his obsession with militia combined with his blatant insanity that he didn't have access to a gun. This is a genuine story by the way.

To those who say that a determined person can always get a gun: Is that really true? How many of us have underworld contacts really? If I flipped my lid and decided to procure a gun illegally, how would I go about that? How would I infiltrate a criminal gang without getting my head kicked in on suspicion of being a grass or undercover copper, and still limping away empty handed? Yes if someone is really really determined, they'd get one, but how many would go to that sort of length? If they've flipped, and it it takes them weeks or even just days to acquire a gun, is there no chance at all that they might have come to their senses by the time they have their gun?

To those who say these things still happen even in countries where there are tighter gun controls: Yes, but do they happen as often? In any case, is that a justification?

These are rhetorical questions by the way. Of course anyone is welcome to attempt to answer them, but that's not my point. I just want people to think about it. I can't change the world. I can't prevent the next horrible massacre, and there will be a next. Best I can hope for is that someone might read this and think about it, and just start to think that the second amendment, which was written by British 'revolutionaries' not long after they took the territory by violent force, might be out of date. The law is so outdated, it was written in the same century as The Witchcraft Act.

 

I'm just agreeing to dissagree.