American Gun Laws,i just don't get it (Aurora Cinema shootings)

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by Wirey

With that in mind, I e-mailed your profile to Bellevue. Good luck.

Pbbbbtbbtttbbttt! I'm already an inmate there.
Are you the aging Adonis in the rubber room next door?

[England my lionheart]

Originally Posted by Thief

And after all of this....
In another thread I saw someone post.....it is legal to own a saw-off shotgun in England.
Is that right?
The most obvious choice of concealed mayhem.

I say, everyone should carry.....and return fire to be expected.

No its not legal to own a sawn off Shotgun in England.

You say "everyone should carry" but is it necessary to have over a thousand rounds of ammunition in your house for protection,what could you be expecting,a siege!,would it make more sense for each household to a limited amount of ammo thus reducing the capacity to inflict death on a large scale.

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by England my lionheart

No its not legal to own a sawn off Shotgun in England.

You say "everyone should carry" but is it necessary to have over a thousand rounds of ammunition in your house for protection,what could you be expecting,a siege!,would it make more sense for each household to a limited amount of ammo thus reducing the capacity to inflict death on a large scale.

Your proposed limitation would only apply to those who would honor it. Anyone planning to mass murder wouldn't care about it, & would accumulate anyway.
Enacting a law doesn't mean that the law will have the stated effect. Tis better to consider laws which would actually reduce the carnage.

A good example of a feckless law was the "Assault Weapons Ban". It didn't affect any actual assault weapons, which were just as available after the ban as
they were before (with the proper license). The "Ban" didn't even ban look-alikes. Rather it affected sale of hi-capacity magazines made after a certain date,
& required the addition of finger grooves on hand gun grips, & a few other cosmetic changes. How one Earth could this possibly reduce crime or assaults?

[England my lionheart]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

Your proposed limitation would only apply to those who would honor it. Anyone planning to mass murder wouldn't care about it, & would accumulate anyway.
Enacting a law doesn't mean that the law will have the stated effect. Tis better to consider laws which would actually reduce the carnage.

A good example of a feckless law was the "Assault Weapons Ban". It didn't affect any actual assault weapons, which were just as available after the ban as
they were before (with the proper license). The "Ban" didn't even ban look-alikes. Rather it affected sale of hi-capacity magazines made after a certain date,
& required the addition of finger grooves on hand gun grips, & a few other cosmetic changes. How one Earth could this possibly reduce crime or assaults?

It seems to me that any law would be unworkable regarding Guns because of the State issue,its ok in one State but not in another and as you say limiting laws are ineffectual,i wonder if anything practical can be done as there has been a rise in Gun crime in the UK and we have many laws regarding Guns and other weapons such as Swords and Knifes,i still don't get the amount of ammunition allowed though.

[Copernicus]

I think we can take it as granted that people who disobey laws are criminals. What we don't take for granted is that gun control laws are ineffective merely because some people will disobey them. It is true that Holmes might have committed exactly the same crime with exactly the same equipment even if there had been a ban on the sale and ownership of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. However, what most of us who favor gun control actually argue is that such incidents would be less likely to occur and would tend to produce fewer casualties when they did occur. Moreover, there are no good arguments to support the idea that assault weapons and high capacity magazines have a redeeming social value.

Mitt Romney responded to the Aurora tragedy a few days ago by mouthing the same tired arguments against gun control. He pointed out that Norway had a mass murder incident recently despite its gun control restrictions. What he didn't say (and the interviewer didn't bring up) was that Norway has had remarkably fewer of such incidents than the US has. I don't see Romney as a stupid man. He once did strongly support gun control laws. He opposes them now, because he cannot afford to be seen as someone who thinks it makes sense to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Obama has staked out the "radical" position that maybe people shouldn't be allowed to own weapons with that kind of potential for mass murder. He's daring, isn't he? What audacity!

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by England my lionheart

It seems to me that any law would be unworkable regarding Guns because of the State issue,its ok in one State but not in another and as you say limiting laws are ineffectual,i wonder if anything practical can be done as there has been a rise in Gun crime in the UK and we have many laws regarding Guns and other weapons such as Swords and Knifes,i still don't get the amount of ammunition allowed though.

Back to the practical aspect of the problem, the ones who seem to vex society the most (not necessarily the biggest problem,
but one getting the most media attention) are the loonies who go berserk in a big way. A system to spot them, & then curtail
their access to weapons would be most effective. Of course, this raises the specter of "future crime" punishment, but I ain't
got no better idea. Some liberty will be most likely trampled in any solution, so the big question is which method gets the
most benefit for the least cost? How do we reduce gun carnage while preserving gun rights?

[England my lionheart]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

Back to the practical aspect of the problem, the ones who seem to vex society the most (not necessarily the biggest problem,
but one getting the most media attention) are the loonies who go berserk in a big way. A system to spot them, & then curtail
their access to weapons would be most effective. Of course, this raises the specter of "future crime" punishment, but I ain't
got no better idea. Some liberty will be most likely trampled in any solution, so the big question is which method gets the
most benefit for the least cost? How do we reduce gun carnage while preserving gun rights?

Although its really no business of mine what the American Gun laws are i would venture an opinion,IMO the problem lies with policing the numbers of Gun owners,as it stands an almost impossible task,lets say 55 million households legally own a Gun in the US (an example figure) thats a lot of people to check for their suitability for Gun ownership.

I think that the onus should be put on the suppliers of weapons and ammunition,these companies earn a lot of money in the market so when they **** up by supplying unsuitable people with a large amount of ammunition and SEMI automatic weapons without questioning or alerting the authorities they are very heavily fined and their licence revoked,this would then force suppliers to police themselves,just a Limey perspective though.

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by England my lionheart

Although its really no business of mine what the American Gun laws are....

Stop right there, bub! In the area of venturing opinions, it is entirely your business.

....i would venture an opinion,IMO the problem lies with policing the numbers of Gun owners,as it stands an almost impossible task,lets say 55 million households legally own a Gun in the US (an example figure) thats a lot of people to check for their suitability for Gun ownership.

I think that the onus should be put on the suppliers of weapons and ammunition,these companies earn a lot of money in the market so when they **** up by supplying unsuitable people with a large amount of ammunition and SEMI automatic weapons without questioning or alerting the authorities they are very heavily fined and their licence revoked,this would then force suppliers to police themselves,just a Limey perspective though.

Your suggestion certainly has more merit that restricting general ownership. But enforcement in tort could be very punitive for the amount of good it does.
This is an area where perhaps a regulatory system to vet buyers & to report high-risk-of-going-postal people would work better.
I'm not saying this is a great idea....just tossing it out there.

[England my lionheart]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

Stop right there, bub! In the area of venturing opinions, it is entirely your business.

Your suggestion certainly has more merit that restricting general ownership. But enforcement in tort could be very punitive for the amount of good it does.
This is an area where perhaps a regulatory system to vet buyers & to report high-risk-of-going-postal people would work better.
I'm not saying this is a great idea....just tossing it out there.

Me too,just tossing it out there,cut or limit the supply by strict regulation with the allure of a limited amount of licences to supply weapons and ammunition would make for competition and encourage self policing,of course thats way too simplistic and doesn't account for the illegal side.

For what its worth,on the positive side,considering that America is possibly numero uno in Gun ownership its safer than the swat valley which is a war zone.

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

the loonies who go berserk in a big way. A system to spot them, & then curtail
their access to weapons would be most effective.

We need Crazy Control, not more gun control