Obama: Greatest regret - not bringing in gun control

[Vipa]

When a senior police officer was asked why the handgun ban had not brought about a reduction in handgun crime, he said. "We didn't expect it to".

As far as the police were concerned, the handgun ban was never going to bring about a tangible reduction in crime as legally held handguns were never (or incredibly rarely) used in crime in the first place... what the police expected was that the handgun ban would prevent any future massacres of children using legally held handguns, which, no matter which way you look at it, it achieved!!!

 

[JTO]

As far as the police were concerned, the handgun ban was never going to bring about a tangible reduction in crime as legally held handguns were never (or incredibly rarely) used in crime in the first place... what the police expected was that the handgun ban would prevent any future massacres of children using legally held handguns, which, no matter which way you look at it, it achieved!!!

So why is there not a ban on cars capable of breaking the speed limit? No income from speeding tickets?

 

[Vipa]

So why is there not a ban on cars capable of breaking the speed limit? No income from speeding tickets?

You are comparing apples with coconuts there JTO... cars are an absolute necessity to 21st century society, guns most certainly are not. and as has been said before.. the vast majority of deaths by car are accidental or negligent... the vast majority of deaths by gun are malicious. Limiting vehicles electronically was mooted at some point... there was a consultation about limiting motorbikes to 70mph about 15 years ago... If I remember it was scrapped as it would have been too costly to implement, to easy to circumvent and almost impossible to police.. I suspect the same goes for cars & vans (most lorries already are electronically limited) but the scale is so much bigger (i.e. many more cars on the road than bikes!)

I'm just telling you what the police expectations of the handgun ban were, nothing more..

 

[JTO]

So it's just like a conservationist who said. 'Because it was one we thought we could win'. When asked why they has pressed for a ban on wildfowling on a South Coast harbour. Are vehicles capable of exceeding 70mph , a necessity of 21st century society?

 

[Vipa]

So it's just like a conservationist who said. 'Because it was one we thought we could win'. When asked why they has pressed for a ban on wildfowling on a South Coast harbour. Are vehicles capable of exceeding 70mph , a necessity of 21st century society?

Probably not, unless they decide to go ahead and increase the national speed limit to 80... but see the rest of the response above.. Who is going to foot the multi billion pound bill to fit all existing vehicles with speed limiters? And then there is the argument that sometimes, being able to accelerate out of trouble can be a lifesaver... can you imagine being forced into the central reservation by a HGV and having no way of punching out... then there is of course the fact that, statistically, very, very few accidents and fatalities are caused at speeds in excess of our national limit.... motorways and major duel carriageways are the safest roads in the country... Limiting cars to 70 wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on the accidents that happen at inappropriate speeds in built up areas or country roads.

 

[Southern]

When a senior police officer was asked why the handgun ban had not brought about a reduction in handgun crime, he said. "We didn't expect it to".

Because "gun control" is not about reducing crime against individuals; it is necessary for taking away the final freedoms of individuals. It is People Control, purely political.

but there is also no clear evidence that increasing gun ownership makes people safer.

Not in the UK, where most people are disarmed.
But in the USA, where there are 2,500,000 reported cases a year of citizens using a firearm to stop a crime, widespread gun ownership by honest citizens demonstrably reduces crime.
This Monday, just a few miles from my office, a woman coming home from work late at night was attacked in her front yard by a man with no identification, who strangled her a bit, before she drew her .40 S&W and killed him.

The whole discussion about whether someone "can justify" owning a vehicle capable of going faster than X mph, or a truck "larger than they need", has no place in a free society. It is nobody's business except the person who wants to buy the car or truck... or airplane... or boat... or gun. This is all socialist clap trap, from arrogant little tyrants who want to tell other people how to live, as if they know best. Call the nonsense out and shame them early or, like all bullies, they become bolder.

 

[Alistair]

Because "gun control" is not about reducing crime against individuals; it is necessary for taking away the final freedoms of individuals. It is People Control, purely political.


Not in the UK, where most people are disarmed.
But in the USA, where there are 2,500,000 reported cases a year of citizens using a firearm to stop a crime, widespread gun ownership by honest citizens demonstrably reduces crime.
This Monday, just a few miles from my office, a woman coming home from work late at night was attacked in her front yard by a man with no identification, who strangled her a bit, before she drew her .40 S&W and killed him.

The whole discussion about whether someone "can justify" owning a vehicle capable of going faster than X mph, or a truck "larger than they need", has no place in a free society. It is nobody's business except the person who wants to buy the car or truck... or airplane... or boat... or gun. This is all socialist clap trap, from arrogant little tyrants who want to tell other people how to live, as if they know best. Call the nonsense out and shame them early or, like all bullies, they become bolder.

Whilst I do not necessarily agree, I see where you are coming from here. This being your argument, would you be averse to stricter laws on the storage and safe handling of firearms on the understanding that your right to their possession is preserved? Something along the lines of having secure storage in a gun cabinet when not on your person, storing ammo and weapons separately, maybe even a training course as I believe is done in Canada and many other places, even, dare I say registration of guns so that the authorities can keep track of who has them, no guns for convicted felons or 'illegal aliens' as you keep mentioning? This would seem to serve well as a middle ground where your rights are preserved, whilst still reducing accidental deaths etc.

 

[Southern]

No registration, as it is a prelude to confiscation.

No licensing for ownership, as the right to own property and the right to self defense are natural rights, from which all the rest of society is built.
Just as you have a presumption of innocence when accused, the burden is on others, and The State, to prove you are unfit to be armed.

Perhaps some licensing and training for a concealed weapons permit, but not to the point of being much of an impediment to honest people.
Perhaps some training for a hunting license, as all states have.

But in many states, you have a right to keep a handgun in your car, secured, and in your business or home, and to transport the handgun by vehicle or foot to and from your home, business, hunting, and target shooting, without a license. That is a good thing. In some states, you can carry a handgun without a license so long as it is not concealed.

Low or no licensing cost, so as to not tax away the right, especially for poor people who are most often the targets of low-life criminals.

No laws on storage are necessary. Legal liability is covered under civil tort law, and has been since the 16th century. I trust the insurance companies to come up with reasonable standards, based on real data sifted by skilled actuaries.

The NRA was founded to provide training and promote safety. It is not a lobby, contrary to medial propaganda. It is a non-profit corporation. It does have an affiliated lobbying organization, which only came into existence 100 years into its charter. The NRA is the largest civil rights organization in the world.

 

[Alistair]

No registration, as it is a prelude to confiscation.

No licensing for ownership, as the right to own property and the right to self defense are natural rights, from which all the rest of society is built.
Just as you have a presumption of innocence when accused, the burden is on others, and The State, to prove you are unfit to be armed.

Perhaps some licensing and training for a concealed weapons permit, but not to the point of being much of an impediment to honest people.
Perhaps some training for a hunting license, as all states have.

Low or no licensing cost, so as to not tax away the right, especially for poor people who are most often the targets of low-life criminals.

No laws on storage are necessary. Legal liability is covered under civil tort law, and has been since the 16th century. I trust the insurance companies to come up with reasonable standards, based on real data sifted by skilled actuaries.

The NRA was founded to provide training and promote safety. It is not a lobby, contrary to medial propaganda. It is a non-profit corporation. It does have an affiliated lobbying organization, which only came into existence 100 years into its charter. The NRA is the largest civil rights organization in the world.

I was thinking of a system similar to that for cars really, except without an age limit. Do your test, get your license, buy your car, register it, use it. I don't think registration or licensing in that sort of system is 'a prelude to confiscation' or an unreasonable infringement on your rights.

As for training, I agree it shouldn't be too onerous, nor should you be able to fail, but something similar to what most of us learnt from our parents wouldn't go amiss. Some guidance on muzzle awareness and general safety, safe storage, general maintenance, 'A Fathers Advice', reloading perhaps, but no more than a days course and preferably covered under the cost of the license, which I agree should be low. To be frank I reckon something like that wouldn't go amiss over here as well, although our licensing system basically ensures that it occurs anyway, just through the need to prove 'good reason' for ownership.

I do however disagree on the storage thing. Maybe legal liability is covered and the insurance companies may well make judgements on premiums, but some minimum requirements regarding locked cabinets, preventing immediate access to children, a requirement for weapons to be stored unloaded and the like may not go amiss. There are no storage requirements for air rifles over here, but mine still live in the cabinet with the other firearms, because that seems the safest place for them.

I can't comment on the NRA.

 

[Boomerang]

The US will enter into arms control treaties with other nations - why can't you guys trust each other enough to accept some responsibility for having deadly weapons domestically?

 

[JTO]

Probably not, .......but see the rest of the response above.. Who is going to foot the multi billion pound bill to fit all existing vehicles with speed limiters?

So it's all down to money? It's OK to be capable of breaking the law of the land, but not if guns are involved? Sledgehammers and walnuts come to mind.

 

[Southern]

You don't need a license to drive an automobile in the USA, except on public roads. And we didn't need those until the 1920s, when they began paving roads and needed data to justify the cost.

You can drive a car all day long with no registration, tags, insurance, or driver's license, on your own land. Many farmers and ranchers do that very thing.

But a means of self defense is in a higher class of property, because it is a necessity for staying alive, and discouraging despots. That is why it is a natural right, in the bill of rights of England and other countries, and was made a part of the US Constitution which cannot be repealed.

Another example of armed citizens backing down an oppressive government ( which many may not like ): In the 1920s, the German hunting clubs had a day of Shooting Fests, where all the hunters and target shooters came out in public. The occupying French army stayed in their barracks, and the occupying government backed off some taxes and other measures.

 

[Southern]

The US will enter into arms control treaties with other nations - why can't you guys trust each other enough to accept some responsibility for having deadly weapons domestically?

Our Constitution does not permit it. Very wise.
Now we just need to roll back about 24,000 of the 25,000 laws already on the books.

 

[Vipa]

No laws on storage are necessary. Legal liability is covered under civil tort law, and has been since the 16th century. I trust the insurance companies to come up with reasonable standards, based on real data sifted by skilled actuaries.

This just about sums up the problem with the American mindset when it comes to firearms.... someone mentions laws on firearm storage and the first thing that springs to your mind is the financial implication! I have a sneaking suspicion the poster was refering to laws designed to stop a kid picking up a loaded gun sat on the coffee table (just in case!?!?!?!) and ventilating his 2 year old sister!!!

Truly scary!!!

And as for the NRA..... well... please don't get me started!

 

[Vipa]

So it's all down to money? It's OK to be capable of breaking the law of the land, but not if guns are involved? Sledgehammers and walnuts come to mind.

I didn't say that at all.. but money, certainly on the scale that would involve, has to be a consideration.. sledgehammer/Walnut ... yep you are right... that would certainly fit into that analogy, as I have said, very few people die in motorway or over 70mph incidents... it would achieve nothing..

The handgun ban achieved what it set out to achieve.. sure it was a bit of a ****er when I had to hand mine in but in the grand scheme of life, it really wasn't important.. I wonder if your attitude would be the same if it was one of your children killed in Dunblain?

 

[Vipa]

But a means of self defense is in a higher class of property, because it is a necessity for staying alive, and discouraging despots. That is why it is a natural right, in the bill of rights of England and other countries, and was made a part of the US Constitution which cannot be repealed.

I think you'll find anything is possible if you put your mind to it!!!

 

[Alistair]

You don't need a license to drive an automobile in the USA, except on public roads. And we didn't need those until the 1920s, when they began paving roads and needed data to justify the cost.

You can drive a car all day long with no registration, tags, insurance, or driver's license, on your own land. Many farmers and ranchers do that very thing.

But a means of self defense is in a higher class of property, because it is a necessity for staying alive, and discouraging despots. That is why it is a natural right, in the bill of rights of England and other countries, and was made a part of the US Constitution which cannot be repealed.

Another example of armed citizens backing down an oppressive government ( which many may not like ): In the 1920s, the German hunting clubs had a day of Shooting Fests, where all the hunters and target shooters came out in public. The occupying French army stayed in their barracks, and the occupying government backed off some taxes and other measures.

I suspect for most americans, a car is more essential to their way of life than a gun. Nonetheless, I don't want to argue about it, but I am genuinely trying to understand why americans are so anti this type of law. I understand that you feel strongly about your right to bear arms, and i wouldn't dream of trying to argue that a uk type system is a solution, but as vipa says, why is some basic legislation stating that you can't keep a loaded gun lying around the house where anyone can get at it such a bad thing.

To vipa; I would argue that the handgun legislation has failed. It has had no bearing on crime rates, as expected, but if you asked the politicians why it was brought in they would say "to stop Dunblaine from ever happening again". Tell me, bearing in mind the acts committed in Hungerford, has the aim stated above been achieved? Unsurprisingly taking away a class of weapons doesn't work because it doesn't get to the root cause. Education is needed along with a radical shift in attitude whilst banning things is just a knee jerk reaction.

Anyway, back to the states...

 

[nun_hunter]

As far as the police were concerned, the handgun ban was never going to bring about a tangible reduction in crime as legally held handguns were never (or incredibly rarely) used in crime in the first place... what the police expected was that the handgun ban would prevent any future massacres of children using legally held handguns, which, no matter which way you look at it, it achieved!!!

what about HD pistols? They are in circulation but obviously in far fewer numbers than before the ban and those who have them have are scrutinised more in depth to make sure they're suitable and safe to own. None of these hand gun owners have carried out a massacre since the ban so surely that indicates that hand guns aren't the problem but unsuitable people owning them?

 

[nun_hunter]

I didn't say that at all.. but money, certainly on the scale that would involve, has to be a consideration.. sledgehammer/Walnut ... yep you are right... that would certainly fit into that analogy, as I have said, very few people die in motorway or over 70mph incidents... it would achieve nothing..

The handgun ban achieved what it set out to achieve.. sure it was a bit of a ****er when I had to hand mine in but in the grand scheme of life, it really wasn't important.. I wonder if your attitude would be the same if it was one of your children killed in Dunblain?

I'd have an issue with the person who carried out the atrocity and anyone who had concerns about his suitability to own firearms but did nothing about it. Blaming an inanimate object that he used to carry out the act is ridiculous just like blaming the car for a drink driver. We live in a society now where admitting blame and taking responsibility for our actions is something most people are incapable of and this needs to be addressed rather than taking away the decision making process for individuals.

 

[Mungo]

and discouraging despots. That is why it is a natural right, in the bill of rights of England and other countries, and was made a part of the US Constitution which cannot be repealed.

But that's not true, is it. The 'right to bear arms' is an ammendment (the second), and can be repealed by a further ammendment.

Similarly, Prohibition was an ammendment (the 18th), and was repealed by the 21st.

For someone who claims to have been engaged in this debate for decades, you sometimes show a very shaky and selective grasp of both the legislation and the facts.