Obama: Greatest regret - not bringing in gun control

[Southern]

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!!!

That is why laws and verdicts should not be made on emotion and speculation, but on real cases, by persons not directly involved ( judges, attorneys, and juries ).

Negligence is classified on several levels. Gross negligence is open to punitive damages. Criminal negligence is when there was no intent to harm, but the neglect or failure to protect had the same result as an intentional harming. So there are financial consequences of restitution to the victim, punitive damages to the victim, and fines and jail time for the defendant.

Law has had this covered for for 500 years, Vipa. Don't let yourself be conned by politicians looking at any excusing to take more power to themselves.

 

[Southern]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were forced on the writers by the state assemblies, who refused to consider ratification unless an American version of the English Bill of Rights was included in the core document. Some said, "We can't put everything in there. Everyone knows these are immutable natural rights of all men." But the states insisted that they be added to the original draft or they would order their delegates to vote down the entire package. So, they can't be repealed or modified or watered down by subsequent amendments.

Now, if we would just strictly enforce the Constitution, there would be very few firearms laws, no federal welfare programs, no subsidies for solar and wind farms, no foreign aid to dictatorships...

 

[Vipa]

That is why laws and verdicts should not be made on emotion and speculation, but on real cases, by persons not directly involved ( judges, attorneys, and juries ).

Negligence is classified on several levels. Gross negligence is open to punitive damages. Criminal negligence is when there was no intent to harm, but the neglect or failure to protect had the same result as an intentional harming. So there are financial consequences of restitution to the victim, punitive damages to the victim, and fines and jail time for the defendant.

Law has had this covered for for 500 years, Vipa. Don't let yourself be conned by politicians looking at any excusing to take more power to themselves.

I'm not interested in financial recompense, I'm not interested in punishments.... I am interested in kids not getting hurt or killed in the first place, a soloution to which is the locking away of guns so kids can't get thier hands on them unsupervised. If you are not responsible enough to do this of your own volition or simply can't be arsed or even worse.... don't see it as important... then the authorities should put legislation in place to force you to do it... whilst I'm not naive enough to think everyone would comply... at least some of you would which would in turn save the life of at least one child but the reality is it would probably be many more than one!

 

[Vipa]

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...

I would counter that with 2 arguments.... 1... the weapons outlawed, both hi cap semi autos and hanguns, have the potential to inflict more carnage in a short space of time than a bolt action hunting rifle and 2.... handguns and s/a assault type weapons attract and appeal to, a different crowd... as I have said before... 90% of my old gun club had no interest in target shooting, they just wanted to look cool and liked the way packing a glock et al made them feel! the same went for those who liked to play with S/A assault weapons... they wouln't have used a bolt action rifle to hammer a nail in, let alone want to own and shoot with one... These were the same people who wanted to wander round with 12" Rambo esque 'survival' knives... completely impractical, but it made them feel, well, like Rambo...

If the S/A & handgun bans did nothing else, it rid the sport of a great number of participants who's motives for ownership were questionable at best, quite sinister at worst!

As for the point made about HD pistols... the numbers are not just lower than before the ban, they are almost non existent in comparison, most are also restricted to 2 shots and the mindset and motivation for ownership is completely different to the majority of ownership pre ban!

Anyhoo... we aren't discussing the UK here... suffice to say, I feel quite comfortable where we are right now.. I certainly don't feel oppressed or subjugated and am happy that my family can go about thier business with vitually no chance of finding someone pointing a gun at them in thier lifetime!

 

[Southern]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Safety Council, accidental shootings of children have decreased 80% since 1900, in spite of the population tripling.
40% of US households with children have firearms.
An average of 124 children per year are killed by firearms accidents, 0.11 per 100,000.
Total child deaths by accidents are 5.0 per 100,000.
More children drown in buckets and wash tubs than are killed by firearms.
Swimming pools "kill" 6.5 times as many children.

WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports

Total accidental death rate for children in the UK is 4.9 per 100,000 - same rate as the USA, different accidental causes.

So the emotional rationalizing for "gun control" jumps from one "justification" to another, as each is debunked.
Since guns are not a significant cause of child deaths, the focus should be on the things which are.
And there is a limit to how low we can reduce any number of accidents, without stupidly restrictive laws.

 

[palmer_mike]

Only 124, I guess that's acceptable then......

 

[Vipa]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Safety Council, accidental shootings of children have decreased 80% since 1900, in spite of the population tripling.
40% of US households with children have firearms.
An average of 124 children per year are killed by firearms accidents, 0.11 per 100,000.
Total child deaths by accidents are 5.0 per 100,000.
More children drown in buckets and wash tubs than are killed by firearms.
Swimming pools "kill" 6.5 times as many children.

WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports

And you don't think that's 124 too many? most of which would never have happened if the gun used was locked away?

 

[Mungo]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were forced on the writers by the state assemblies, who refused to consider ratification unless an American version of the English Bill of Rights was included in the core document. Some said, "We can't put everything in there. Everyone knows these are immutable natural rights of all men." But the states insisted that they be added to the original draft or they would order their delegates to vote down the entire package. So, they can't be repealed or modified or watered down by subsequent amendments.
.

I don't think that's true either - as far as I'm aware, even the Ammendments constituting the Bill of Rights can be repealed or modified by a 2/3 majority in both houses.

I would be very curious to see the bit of legislation that makes them inviolate.

 

[Greymaster]

Only 124, I guess that's acceptable then......

3000 patients p.a. die in UK hospitals from avoidable dehydration.

 

[Greymaster]

I don't think that's true either - as far as I'm aware, even the Ammendments constituting the Bill of Rights can be repealed or modified by a 2/3 majority in both houses.

I would be very curious to see the bit of legislation that makes them inviolate.

The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm

 

[Southern]

If all the guns were locked away, how many of those 2,500,000 criminals stopped by armed citizens would have killed an innocent person?
You can't say.
But it is safe to bet that it is more than the 124 children killed accidentally by someone misusing a firearm.
So Americans choose to accept the insignificant risk of an accident against the safety of quick access to their weapons. That is their business alone, not mine, not yours, not the state.

 

[palmer_mike]

3000 patients p.a. die in UK hospitals from avoidable dehydration.

Also entirely unacceptable

 

[Alistair]

I would counter that with 2 arguments.... 1... the weapons outlawed, both hi cap semi autos and hanguns, have the potential to inflict more carnage in a short space of time than a bolt action hunting rifle and 2.... handguns and s/a assault type weapons attract and appeal to, a different crowd... as I have said before... 90% of my old gun club had no interest in target shooting, they just wanted to look cool and liked the way packing a glock et al made them feel! the same went for those who liked to play with S/A assault weapons... they wouln't have used a bolt action rifle to hammer a nail in, let alone want to own and shoot with one... These were the same people who wanted to wander round with 12" Rambo esque 'survival' knives... completely impractical, but it made them feel, well, like Rambo...

If the S/A & handgun bans did nothing else, it rid the sport of a great number of participants who's motives for ownership were questionable at best, quite sinister at worst!

As for the point made about HD pistols... the numbers are not just lower than before the ban, they are almost non existent in comparison, most are also restricted to 2 shots and the mindset and motivation for ownership is completely different to the majority of ownership pre ban!

Anyhoo... we aren't discussing the UK here... suffice to say, I feel quite comfortable where we are right now.. I certainly don't feel oppressed or subjugated and am happy that my family can go about thier business with vitually no chance of finding someone pointing a gun at them in thier lifetime!

That is all very interesting, and based almost entirely on your personal opinion. I would say that, as a guy who runs the clay shooting at my university and therefore give around 50 people a year their first taste of firearm use, that this is more because it is new and seen as 'forbidden', something that applies to all firearms. It is also the case with cars. You pass your test at 17 and for about 3 months it is the most exciting thing in the world, you take any oppurtunity to drive and genuinely enjoy it. After that the novelty wear off, you realise fuel is expensive, your car is slow and a bit crap and that most of your time is spent in traffic and you then drive more to get to your destination, and less for fun. The same is true of alcohol, having a pint at 16 or 17 is infinitely more exciting than at 18, purely because it isn't allowed.
Anyway, speculation aside, you haven't answered the question: Has banning pistols stopped crime involving legally held firearms or even reduced it?

 

[Alistair]

If all the guns were locked away, how many of those 2,500,000 criminals stopped by armed citizens would have killed an innocent person?
You can't say.
But it is safe to bet that it is more than the 124 children killed accidentally by someone misusing a firearm.
So Americans choose to accept the insignificant risk of an accident against the safety of quick access to their weapons. That is their business alone, not mine, not yours, not the state.

I would argue that 124 deaths a year is far from an insignificant risk. Also, if you feel the need to have quick access to a weapon, then i have no issue with people carrying a weapon with them, but i don't see the need to have loaded weapons lying around the house. You want to carry a pistol day to day? Fine. You want to sleep with a gun under your pillow? Fine. But i can't see how leaving a loaded gun by the front door or on your mantlepiece helps in apprehending criminals, whilst clearly it is immediately available for a passing child. Don't get me wrong, I am not against guns for self defence per se, but I feel that someone should always be responsible for a firearm, either through having it on their person, or having it securely locked away.

 

[Vipa]

That is all very interesting, and based almost entirely on your personal opinion. I would say that, as a guy who runs the clay shooting at my university and therefore give around 50 people a year their first taste of firearm use, that this is more because it is new and seen as 'forbidden', something that applies to all firearms. It is also the case with cars. You pass your test at 17 and for about 3 months it is the most exciting thing in the world, you take any oppurtunity to drive and genuinely enjoy it. After that the novelty wear off, you realise fuel is expensive, your car is slow and a bit crap and that most of your time is spent in traffic and you then drive more to get to your destination, and less for fun. The same is true of alcohol, having a pint at 16 or 17 is infinitely more exciting than at 18, purely because it isn't allowed.
Anyway, speculation aside, you haven't answered the question: Has banning pistols stopped crime involving legally held firearms or even reduced it?

not personal opinion at all... direct oservation and involvement for 10 years up to the ban '96 and the military. the kinds of people (in general) who are attracted to playing with glocks and sigs and ARs are not the same kinds of people who tend to be attracted to shotguns and clay shooting. The pychological effects of handguns are well known and again... nothing like those invoked by a 12 guage!
This isn't speculation as anyone from the pistol shooting days will attest... combats, shoulder rigs and 12" military boots along with the swagger of Bruce Willis!

As to your question.... If the point of banning legal ownership of semi auto rifles and later handguns was to prevent further attrocities being committed with legally owned semi auto rifles and handguns then yes, it was successful... since it happened there have been no attrocities committed with legally held semi automatic rifles or handguns, nor will thier ever be whilst the ban is in place... I really don't see how this is such a difficult fact to get your head around...

As there was little to no crime involving the above items prior to the bans (other than the massacres which are enough in my book!) how could there be any effect other than the stated aims as above!

 

[Alistair]

not personal opinion at all... direct oservation and involvement for 10 years up to the ban '96 and the military. the kinds of people (in general) who are attracted to playing with glocks and sigs and ARs are not the same kinds of people who tend to be attracted to shotguns and clay shooting. The pychological effects of handguns are well known and again... nothing like those invoked by a 12 guage!
This isn't speculation as anyone from the pistol shooting days will attest... combats, shoulder rigs and 12" military boots along with the swagger of Bruce Willis!

As to your question.... If the point of banning legal ownership of semi auto rifles and later handguns was to prevent further attrocities being committed with legally owned semi auto rifles and handguns then yes, it was successful... since it happened there have been no attrocities committed with legally held semi automatic rifles or handguns, nor will thier ever be whilst the ban is in place... I really don't see how this is such a difficult fact to get your head around...

As there was little to no crime involving the above items prior to the bans (other than the massacres which are enough in my book!) how could there be any effect other than the stated aims as above!

The fact that your opinion is based on your direct involvement and personal observation makes it, by definition, personal opinion. Obviously a law which makes pistols illegal means that there will be no more massacres involving legally held pistols, I can get my head around that, but that doesn't mean that the law is effective. The law is presumably intended to prevent massacres. This has not occurred. Whilst you can say that this is a success, that is as stupid as saying that a law that bans kitchen knives was a success in stopping murder, as since the ban no murders have been committed with legally held kitchen knives. Technically true, but utterly moronic none the less. Possibly Hungerford would have involved a pistol instead if they were still legal, but I doubt the fact that it didn't is much of a comfort to the families of the victims. The only truly effective way to prevent such events involving legally held firearms is to make all firearms illegal. You will achieve the aim; no one will ever again be killed with a legally held firearm, but will it stop people from killing each other? I think not...

 

[Vipa]

The fact that your opinion is based on your direct involvement and personal observation makes it, by definition, personal opinion. Obviously a law which makes pistols illegal means that there will be no more massacres involving legally held pistols, I can get my head around that, but that doesn't mean that the law is effective. The law is presumably intended to prevent massacres. This has not occurred. Whilst you can say that this is a success, that is as stupid as saying that a law that bans kitchen knives was a success in stopping murder, as since the ban no murders have been committed with legally held kitchen knives. Technically true, but utterly moronic none the less. Possibly Hungerford would have involved a pistol instead if they were still legal, but I doubt the fact that it didn't is much of a comfort to the families of the victims. The only truly effective way to prevent such events involving legally held firearms is to make all firearms illegal. You will achieve the aim; no one will ever again be killed with a legally held firearm, but will it stop people from killing each other? I think not...

Hungerford involved semi auto assault weapons... handguns were perfectly legal at the time, I assume Mr Ryan just felt his goal could be better achieved with rifles!

Ok.. I'll play along (despite the unessary insults!) slightly tangental but... where would you draw the line? if banning specific weapon types is 'moronic' and can't be effective then lets take it the other way...where would YOU draw the line down the list... wher do you stop civilian ownership:

None
Shotguns
Bolt Action Rifles
Handguns
Semi automatic full bore rifles
fully automatic full bore rifles
gatling guns
RPGs
Mortars
AAC guns
AAC misiles
C4
Daisy cutters
small tactical nukes
large tactical nukes

I'm not being pedantic ... truly interested in your thouight process... in fact anyone can play along...

 

[Southern]

I would argue that 124 deaths a year is far from an insignificant risk. Also, if you feel the need to have quick access to a weapon, then i have no issue with people carrying a weapon with them, but i don't see the need to have loaded weapons lying around the house. You want to carry a pistol day to day? Fine. You want to sleep with a gun under your pillow? Fine. But i can't see how leaving a loaded gun by the front door or on your mantlepiece helps in apprehending criminals, whilst clearly it is immediately available for a passing child. Don't get me wrong, I am not against guns for self defence per se, but I feel that someone should always be responsible for a firearm, either through having it on their person, or having it securely locked away.

I don't feel the need to keep loaded firearms lying about the house, but at times I have, as when sleeping in a cabin in grizzly bear country, or a tent in Canada with wolves tip-toeing around it while I slept, or when there was a burglar breaking in cars ( I caught him ).

But the point is that it is not for me, or you, or Vipa, to decide what is an acceptable risk for someone else. Only they can do that, because it is a subjective value. It is none of my business.

Modern man is so indoctrinated by state education and media, to think that what he, or "the majority", or some "vocal minority", FEEL is the right thing, should be made into law and imposed on the rest of the world. That is arrogant. And since most of these opinions are not really their own, formed by careful consideration, but are the opinions indoctrinated into them by the truly arrogant leaders, the notion becomes really ludicrous. Our forefathers wouldn't give these silly discussions the time of day. They would not permit even 1/10 the controls which modern man thinks is normal.

 

[Southern]

Vipa, your silly reducio ad absurdum ruse has been used so many times. Yawn.
The rights of individuals to self defense includes owning individual weapons for defense, not squadded weapons.

 

[Alistair]

Hungerford involved semi auto assault weapons... handguns were perfectly legal at the time, I assume Mr Ryan just felt his goal could be better achieved with rifles!

Ok.. I'll play along (despite the unessary insults!) slightly tangental but... where would you draw the line? if banning specific weapon types is 'moronic' and can't be effective then lets take it the other way...where would YOU draw the line down the list... wher do you stop civilian ownership:

None
Shotguns
Bolt Action Rifles
Handguns
Semi automatic full bore rifles
fully automatic full bore rifles
gatling guns
RPGs
Mortars
AAC guns
AAC misiles
C4
Daisy cutters
small tactical nukes
large tactical nukes

I'm not being pedantic ... truly interested in your thouight process... in fact anyone can play along...

Personall I draw the line at automatic weapons. They do need considerable skill to use effctively, but it isn't exactly 'target shooting' and there is no justification for such things in hunting either. They would be justifiable in the states, where 'self defense' is a good reason, but in this country I take the view that it neds to have applications in a recognised sport, preferably olympic (full bore rifle, .22 pistol etc) or a justifiable use otherwise (semi autos for vermin control or driven hunts, a full bore pistol for HD etc.)
Explosives, although possibly not C4 are justiable in britain for demolition purposes and the like, but are not firearms so are more than a little irrelevant.

As for Hungerford, terribly sorry, I got my places confused. i meant Cumbria? Same reasoning though.

The 'moronic' comment wasn't directed at you, but rather at your ridiculous reasoning, and I stand by it completely, whether you took it personally or not.