littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Bet there's not much crossover.
Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting
- Thread starter TomUS
- Start date
Bet there's not much crossover.
There is no prospect of constitutional gun rights being curtailed. That's just right wing paranoia.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
The only rights we're likely to lose are those the right wing wants taken away: voting, free speech, search and seizure protections ....
Athos
Well-Known Member
I agree. Which is why I challenged the early knee-jerk suggestions on this thread to 'ban guns' as nonsensical.
Athos
Well-Known Member
And? It's an irrelevance.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not exactly nonsensical. There will be plenty of people in the US who would love to have the kinds of gun controls other places have. That such disarmament isn't possible for the foreseeable future doesn't make this situation a good thing.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't think that many people would argue that a situation in which kids are regularly masacred is a good thing. But, given that there's absolutely no chance of ban on guns, then there needs to be something more positive from the anti-gun lobby. They could start by looking at the real causes of these incidents, and by recognising the legitimate concerns of their opponents, rather than dismissing them with gross carictures, and relying on skewed statistics and facile comparisons with other cultures.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Polls I've read show that opposition to gun control is higher among white people than other groups. And lower among those who consider crime to be rising. Who is it that is most afraid of their fellow citizens here, so much so that they arm themselves against that threat? Is it those who feel they have most to lose, feel most threatened by others less fortunate than them, but who are in reality the least likely to be victims of crime? I suggest that it is. And this group is the one least likely to even see that there is a problem that needs solving.
I think the comparisons with Brazil are apposite here. And more or less the opposite is true both in the US and in Brazil of what Dwyer was suggesting. People aren't arming themselves against the state but against each other, and it is those in poor areas with the highest gun crime levels that most want to see gun controls.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
As the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs Heller, "militia" in the first clause referred to all adult men, in the 18th century "well-regulated" mean "effective," and the phrase "right of the people" in the second clause elsewhere refers to individual rights (1st Amendment; 4th Amendment).
They also ruled that the 2nd Amendment wasn't an absolute right, but at a minimum, it protects the right of citizens to keep a handgun operable in the home. Given the (at a minimum, it may be more) tens of thousands of defensive gun usages per year, if this were banned, lives would almost certainly be lost.
Athos
Well-Known Member
You're getting closer to the real issues, now.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
The only country in the world so terrified it's freedom is so tedious that it will tolerate the murder of children as an acceptable cost for something the rest of the western world gets for free.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Another gross (and factually inaccurate) over-simplification.
There is no proposal to ban it and AFAIK there never has been.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
8den, many countries allow for legal ownership of semi-auto weapons, and endure massacres without passing new gun control laws. SFAIK, the Storting passed no new gun control laws after scores of children were murdered at Utøya. Are you suggesting that Norwegians "tolerate" the murder of children too?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
its your argument. And the argument of people who refuse to allow any form of curtailment of "2nd ammendment rights"
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing with the 2nd amendment is that it is the product of a very different time. If it didn't already exist, nobody would be calling for it.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Handgun bans are certainly supported by people inside and outside the U.S. (including, according to a 90s questionnaire, Obama), and, indeed, handguns were effectively banned in D.C. and Chicago, which is what lead to the court cases.
Given that handguns are used in most gun crime, any serious attempt at gun control will have to ban or heavily restrict them.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
In effect, they have: the 2nd Amendment was only ruled an individual right in 2008. The wave of concealed carry laws were passed in the decades before that, out of a fear of crime.
Equivalent laws have been passed in other countries. The Czech Republic passed liberal gun laws when it was freed of Soviet tyranny, including concealed carry. Its murder rate is around one in 100,000, roughly what Britain's was in the early 20th century, when it too had legal carry.
Not at all. More right wing paranoia. As I proposed earlier on this thread.....background checks licensing & registration would be a big help. This constant bleating by the extreme right that "they" want to take away our guns is nonsense.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Norway has extremely stringent gun control laws. For example converting a semi auto into a automatic weapon is a felony.Hunters need to pass extensive exams before being qualified to own weapons. Weapons need to be securely stored, and Police are allowed to carry out inspections of weapons storage areas. These are all things people looking to restrict gun ownership in america want.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
And again this simply isnt true. To apply for gun licence in the Czech republic you need to pass a practica and theory test, a criminal background check, a personal reliability check and a health check. And then you have to wait 30 days.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
The Chicago and Washington handgun bans weren't "right wing paranoia," and given that he endorsed a ban on "assault weapons," Australia's laws, and signed a statement in support of banning handguns in Illinois, Obama would certainly like to take away guns if he could.
Moreover, why on earth wouldn't supporters of gun control call for a handgun ban? FBI records tell us that, of the 8,583 gun murders in 2011, 6,220 were committed by handguns, compared to a mere 323 rifle murders, and 356 shotgun murders. Handguns clearly account for the overwhelming majority of American firearm murders, and close to a majority of all murders. Any serious gun control law would have to restrict them, or it's tokenism.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Having laws that permit gun ownership is very different from a constitutional guarantee of such. Checking the Czech situation, the law was clarified on this point to say that gun ownership is specifically excluded from constitutional guarantees.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Never said you didn't. Many states of the union require similar training to legally carry (Illinois tops the list at 16 hours). The Czechs have some 200,000 active carry licenses, and, of course, legal carry makes no difference whatsoever to massacres like that in Oregon.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
well fucking guide him all the way there Tregaurd.
If your point is an increasingly fragmented society suffering from the violence and predation that goes hand in hand with poverty and always has being exacerbated by drug wars and ever increasing firepower-then ok. Its not a mystery as to the social factors that drive gun crime and massacres. Surely a society should look to adress both root AND branch. Tough on the causes of gun mentals and slightly less wild west on the issuing of firearms to any twonk with 35 quid and a grudge
Last edited:
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
And given that they did nothing whatsoever to stop Breivik committing the worst peacetime massacre on record, their effectiveness is, to say the least, questionable!
True, but this is exactly the situation with legal carry in the U.S. Except in the 7th Circuit, bearing arms outside the home hasn't been ruled a constitutional right, and until recently, the 2nd Amendment wasn't an individual right at all. In effect, it was symbolic, and the expansion of gun rights a recent phenomenon, driven through the usual legislative process.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
You're never going to find a 100% effective solution to stop lunatics who want to kill people. However the US has had 276 Mass shootings so far this year. How many has Norway had? Is it less than 276? I think it's less.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Since most of these whackjobs have clean records, the laws you're proposing are as unlikely to stop them as they were able to stop Breivik. That's not a solution that isn't 100% effective; it's a solution that's widely ineffective, and therefore, not a solution at all.
Why not just propose that private ownership of semi-auto weapons be banned? Hell, barring farmers and others who can show need, why not just call for a ban on all private firearms ownership?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
As for the frequency of gun massacres, Norway's a tiny country, with a population of a shade over five million, not so far away from that of Oregon, with a population of just under four million. When was the last equivalent massacre in Oregon? Or, indeed, in any state of the union. Most seem to go decades without, just like most European countries.
Similar threads
