Another day, another mass shooting

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Chris

Quite.

But the constitution does nothing to make these things less likely, does it?

Oh I dunno. When Moses went up to Mount Sinai and came back with a couple of stones, one said on it:

Thou shalt not kill

If that didn't deter folks from killing one another, what hope does the US constitution have?

Originally Posted by Hom3r

We should ban any NRA or pro-NRA from entering the UK.

I would go as far as treating it as a terrorist organisation.

What an ridiculous thing to say.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Your asking me to justify the constitution of the USA, that's a subject best left to the people of the USA. If they didn't want guns there would be no guns , the fact that there are so many indicates they want gun ownership to continue .

If they didn't want mass shootings there would be no mass shootings, the fact that there are so many indicates they want mass shootings to continue...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If they didn't want mass shootings there would be no mass shootings, the fact that there are so many indicates they want mass shootings to continue...

I think you've out done yourself there ,you should get a special prize for that post .

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by denphone

No l don't doubt that but tell me what is justifiable about 25% of the American population owning guns?

So assuming that the number is 25% (not sure if it is or not), why do any of those said individuals have to justify their choice (and right) of owning a gun, to you? (Or anyone else for that matter).

You also have the right to own a gun, in the UK. You don't have to justify your reasoning to anyone, either.

as in a decent civilised society the bullshit about the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is a load of hogwash..

I don't even know where to begin with that....

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Oh look, the NRA rode into town.

To be honest I lack the inclination to argue this with any American gun advocate. By the very fact of being an American gun advocate you’re intentionally blind to the phenomenon of regular mass civilian shooting, a phenomenon that is almost uniquely American in the developed world. Intentional blindness is something an Internet discussion isn’t going to cure.

I will simply observe that local variations in gun law in the USA are, as far as I can see, irrelevant to the argument - if not a deliberate red herring - because there are no internal borders in the USA preventing guns being bought in one place and used in another. Thus any attempt to draw false comparisons between one city’s murder rate and its gun laws, and that of another, is a bit of a waste of time. But then, as I said, the whole debate is a bit of a waste of time. Far too many Americans seem to see the occasional mass slaughter of their fellow citizens as an acceptable price of freedom.

You have a collective sickness of the soul.

Americans also have laws against illegal drug use yet they are suffering an epidemic of heroin addiction. Even if guns were completely banned in the nation there would still be gun violence because, like drugs, people want guns. As I said before, the VAST majority of American gun owners want guns for sport and personal protection. Every time there is media attention regarding a shooting more Americans come to the conclusion that it's to their benefit to be armed in case they are confronted with a homicidal maniac.

While likely not indicative of a universal result for more liberal firearms laws I would cite the case of Arizona as an example of what MIGHT happen when the freedom to carry firearms is extended. Arizona had a homicide rate that climbed consistently from the 1960's to the 1990's. By the mid 1990's the homicide rate had climbed to more than 10/100k. Around that time the political powers that be started looking at other options for curbing violence. They enacted harsher penalties for violent crime, increased law enforcement in problem areas and, in 2003, removed any requirement for anyone in Arizona to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In the 15 years that followed this change the homicide rate dropped in half and is now at or below where it was in the 1960's.

On a national level, the homicide rate in the US INCREASED for the 25 years following the 1968 Gun Control Act which mandated special rules for sellers of firearms and identified circumstances by which someone could be prohibited from possessing a firearm. The homicide rate did start to come down in the mid 1990's with the implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. While there was an "assault weapon" ban associated with the act the primary reason for the decrease in crime seems to have been the overall crackdown on crime. New sentencing guidelines were implemented as were laws related to ones membership in a gang. With regard to the "assault weapons" ban, that portion of the law phased out in 2004 and the homicide rate STILL continued to drop.

In all fairness, at the same time the VCCLE act was implemented so was the Brady Bill which required background checks for firearms purchases through a federally licensed seller. It can be argued that this act also contributed to the decline in the homicide rate but the evidence for that is scant as it can be as easily circumvented as an underage person getting someone to buy beer or liquor for them.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

Ironically Democratic Presidents are better for the gun industry because the sales go up as gun lovers worry that restrictions will be put in place.

Remington (OC) filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year (don't worry, they should survive just fine) but for the most part what is good for the back pocket is the anxiety and distress of the actual gun owner (or lover as you call them).

I.e. the reason for folks stocking up on ammunition and what not, is that a President leery of the second amendment might try and put wholesale bans in place.

That gives most gun owners strife for no reason. (Especially when it never goes anywhere). That causes a run on everything, boosting the profits for gun stores and the demand is higher so it causes manufacturers to produce more.

When there is calm over the issue (like with Trump and Bush being President) the peace of mind for the general gun owning population can sometimes come at the expense of manufacturers back pockets.

The two usually are an equidistant paradox of one another.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I think you've out done yourself there ,you should get a special prize for that post .

Just following your ‘logic’, so we’ll have to share the prize...

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

So assuming that the number is 25% (not sure if it is or not), why do any of those said individuals have to justify their choice (and right) of owning a gun, to you? (Or anyone else for that matter).

They don't have to justify anything to me or anybody else but to their own consciences as if they are happy to close their eyes and ears to the massacres and countless lives lost through lax and liberal gun laws in America then sadly the killings and massacres will go on and on sadly.

[Chloé Palmas]

Ummm....their constituents are likely the ones who are happy to be gun owners in the first place. That is not what is the reason for the massacres.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

You also have the right to own a gun, in the UK. You don't have to justify your reasoning to anyone, either.


.

Why does one want a gun unless it is used for certain pastimes or other important purposes through licensing as tell me as how many massacres do we get in this country as the answer is not many as our gun laws are far stricter and this country is far better for that IMO.

[Chloé Palmas]

I don't know about massacre Den but just a week or two back a dozen odd folks were shot in Manchester:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...chester-police

Granted, that is Moss Side but still...

He did say ‘not many’, not ‘none’...

[Chloé Palmas]

He? I thought Den was a woman!

Originally Posted by Lutherf

Americans also have laws against illegal drug use yet they are suffering an epidemic of heroin addiction. Even if guns were completely banned in the nation there would still be gun violence because, like drugs, people want guns. As I said before, the VAST majority of American gun owners want guns for sport and personal protection. Every time there is media attention regarding a shooting more Americans come to the conclusion that it's to their benefit to be armed in case they are confronted with a homicidal maniac.

While likely not indicative of a universal result for more liberal firearms laws I would cite the case of Arizona as an example of what MIGHT happen when the freedom to carry firearms is extended. Arizona had a homicide rate that climbed consistently from the 1960's to the 1990's. By the mid 1990's the homicide rate had climbed to more than 10/100k. Around that time the political powers that be started looking at other options for curbing violence. They enacted harsher penalties for violent crime, increased law enforcement in problem areas and, in 2003, removed any requirement for anyone in Arizona to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In the 15 years that followed this change the homicide rate dropped in half and is now at or below where it was in the 1960's.

On a national level, the homicide rate in the US INCREASED for the 25 years following the 1968 Gun Control Act which mandated special rules for sellers of firearms and identified circumstances by which someone could be prohibited from possessing a firearm. The homicide rate did start to come down in the mid 1990's with the implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. While there was an "assault weapon" ban associated with the act the primary reason for the decrease in crime seems to have been the overall crackdown on crime. New sentencing guidelines were implemented as were laws related to ones membership in a gang. With regard to the "assault weapons" ban, that portion of the law phased out in 2004 and the homicide rate STILL continued to drop.

In all fairness, at the same time the VCCLE act was implemented so was the Brady Bill which required background checks for firearms purchases through a federally licensed seller. It can be argued that this act also contributed to the decline in the homicide rate but the evidence for that is scant as it can be as easily circumvented as an underage person getting someone to buy beer or liquor for them.

I’m guessing those protesting students have actually got the NRA rattled.