Virginia Shootings

[John MH]

There are too many people, with too many guns that they dont have real need for.

 

Please define 'need'.

[maximus otter]

There are too many people, with too many guns that they dont have real need for. The government need to reel it back in imho.

 

"If the answer is "government", it was a stupid question."

 

If we allow the government to decide whether we "need" firearms, you can kiss the UK's shooting sports goodbye.

 

All the controversy about US firearm murders ignores the vast number of defensive uses of firearms every year, many of which are never officially recorded because the simple brandishing of a weapon by the intended victim ends the attack.

 

We also forget that violent crime in the USA is declining rapidly:

 

"...violent crimes including murders fell 4.4 percent in 2013 to their lowest number since the 1970s, continuing a decades-long downturn, the FBI said on Monday.

The law enforcement agency's annual Crime in the United States report showed the country had an estimated 1.16 million violent crimes last year, the lowest number since 1.09 million were recorded in 1978.

ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS

12

All types of violent crimes were lower, with murder and non-negligent manslaughter off 4.4 percent to 14,196, the lowest figure since 1968."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-violent-crime-1970s-level-20141110-story.html

This is despite an increasing number of guns in the USA, and the spread of Concealed Carry legislation.

We don't have a gun problem here or in the USA; we have a society problem, and crowd-pleasing populist measures like gun bans won't solve that.

maximus otter

[gazzarM1]

 

"If the answer is "government", it was a stupid question."

 

If we allow the government to decide whether we "need" firearms, you can kiss the UK's shooting sports goodbye.

 

All the controversy about US firearm murders ignores the vast number of defensive uses of firearms every year, many of which are never officially recorded because the simple brandishing of a weapon by the intended victim ends the attack.

 

We also forget that violent crime in the USA is declining rapidly:

 

"...violent crimes including murders fell 4.4 percent in 2013 to their lowest number since the 1970s, continuing a decades-long downturn, the FBI said on Monday.

The law enforcement agency's annual Crime in the United States report showed the country had an estimated 1.16 million violent crimes last year, the lowest number since 1.09 million were recorded in 1978.

ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS

12

All types of violent crimes were lower, with murder and non-negligent manslaughter off 4.4 percent to 14,196, the lowest figure since 1968."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-violent-crime-1970s-level-20141110-story.html

This is despite an increasing number of guns in the USA, and the spread of Concealed Carry legislation.

We don't have a gun problem here or in the USA; we have a society problem, and crowd-pleasing populist measures like gun bans won't solve that.

maximus otter

This ^^^^^

[Offroad Gary]

We need to control wildlife, we like to shoot targets.

[brown dog]

Closing summaries only please - not new debate

Then we can all walk away from this thread, having said our piece, with a smile on our faces and a skip in our step.

[John MH]

There are other ways of controlling wildlife and many see shooting deer, foxes, crows or whatever as a needlessly cruel bloodsport. I don't shoot foxes but I would not wish to stop anyone else doing it if that's their thing. Its a sad reflection of the shooting community when some would stand by and watch the lawful activities of one section taken away as they could not fathom their 'need', naively they don't realise that they are next.

 

Currently the law requires someone to show 'good reason' not need, not many people 'need' a firearm. That 'good reason' does need to be demonstrated and firearm holders who cannot continue to show 'good reason' need to be challenged by the authorities and if required give up their possession if they can no longer show 'good reason'.

[provarmint]

If President Obama amended the amendment tomorrow, would we see a dramatic decline in tragedies like this??????

[maximus otter]

If President Obama amended the amendment tomorrow, would we see a dramatic decline in tragedies like this??????

 

No. Not with ~300,000,000 guns in America.

 

Another thought: If politicians get the idea that they can fiddle with Constitutional rights, what's next? Free speech? Double jeopardy? The right to assemble?

 

Politicians love the thin edges of wedges...

 

maximus otter

[gazzarM1]

 

No. Not with ~300,000,000 guns in America.

 

Another thought: If politicians get the idea that they can fiddle with Constitutional rights, what's next? Free speech? Double jeopardy? The right to assemble?

 

Politicians love the thin edges of wedges...

 

maximus otter

The President does not have the power to change the constitution ,although Obama likes his executive orders and tends to disregard the elected representatives when he sees fit.There are a brand of progressive liberals in the states who think that they possess greater wisdom than the founding fathers and would dearly love to alter the constitution to suit their lefty agenda ,Obama is one of them but thankfully there is in existence all the original checks and balances .

[gbal]

The President does not have the power to change the constitution ,although Obama likes his executive orders and tends to disregard the elected representatives when he sees fit.There are a brand of progressive liberals in the states who think that they possess greater wisdom than the founding fathers and would dearly love to alter the constitution to suit their lefty agenda ,Obama is one of them but thankfully there is in existence all the original checks and balances .

This isn't a new point,-but did not someone point out that the Constitution can be amended-by 'Amendments'.

"Liberal = lefty" needs some amendment too.

While having great admiration for at least one on the 'founding fathers' humanity,morality and intellect,did he not also have slaves,an untenable position in contemporary US society,and agin the constitution.

Many US legal experts have raised the issue of just what some of the constitution means and whether the founding farthers would write it word for word now. (cf Moses' Ten Commandaments-but that is contentious too!)

Whatever the detailed merits or not of 'anti gun' views,the motivation seems more 'anti interpersonal violence with especially efficient means that are too readily available.' As Obama puts it,the US has so much more of this than any other 'western' democracy-so some 'common sense' needs to be applied.* Amen,to that.

 

gbal

 

* so far this year the number of 'mass shooting' incidents in US (at least 4 victims in each) is 249

[terryh]

Interesting read thru' this thread, summation then in no particular order of merit:

 

Quantity of firearms held - either nil or 'some', if you take things objectively on ability to do harm 1 or 100 makes no difference.

 

Removal of all personally held firearms, if it would actually do any good rather than be a simple sacrifice on a sanctimonious alter, then unfortunately the answer would be 'yes'. But we know it would be titular or a simple lie, if you truly wanted to look after 'public safety' or do something for the common good then a ban on alcohol would be more effective - it would save more lives in a month that have ever been lost to lawfully held firearms.

 

Equating knives etc. to firearms is a nonstarter - what would the logical end game be then - arming our forces with knives as they are equivalent?

 

Our existing firearm laws are quite sufficient, if you look at the mass killings with licensed firearms in our recent memory they all could have been prevented if the prevailing laws had been applied or indicators followed up on.

 

Objectively no one actually 'needs' a firearm. If vermin/deer etc. need to be controlled then this could be taken care of by a much reduced number people who's job it was to do this, results in a smaller number of people to monitor and control along with their associated firearms.

 

Would I be 'choffed of' if firearms were banned - yes, most definitely as politicians and (senior) police currently seem do dick squat for me, my family, my company or the country to sort long term problems but would jump on things like firearms control to look good.

 

People's stance/opinion will change once the 'oiks' discover home invasion in this country.

 

T

[buddy.223]

 

I believe around 75% of FAC,s for pistols in NI are/were issued for self defence ?

20 yrs ago maybe, not now, id rekon 10%, if you have a clean record, some firearms history, serve at least 1yr probation at a recodnised club you can own and shoot virtually any handgun. (do anything wrong youl loss all overnight)

[brown dog]

This isn't a new point,-but did not someone point out that the Constitution can be amended-by 'Amendments'.

"Liberal = lefty" needs some amendment too.

While having great admiration for at least one on the 'founding fathers' humanity,morality and intellect,did he not also have slaves,an untenable position in contemporary US society,and agin the constitution.

Many US legal experts have raised the issue of just what some of the constitution means and whether the founding farthers would write it word for word now. (cf Moses' Ten Commandaments-but that is contentious too!)

Whatever the detailed merits or not of 'anti gun' views,the motivation seems more 'anti interpersonal violence with especially efficient means that are too readily available.' As Obama puts it,the US has so much more of this than any other 'western' democracy-so some 'common sense' needs to be applied.* Amen,to that.

gbal

* so far this year the number of 'mass shooting' incidents in US (at least 4 victims in each) is 249

Nicely put.

 

Last orders at the bar.

[MarinePMI]

 

 

Isn't California one of the most restrictive States concerning gun laws? Don't you need a permit to purchase firearms in Ca and have all firearms registered?

Yes, yes California is, and I still have a right to own pretty much what I want compared to you guys in the UK (suppressors/moderators and Class III/full auto/SBRs are still illegal here...for now). Even the 10 day waiting period is being repealed for those that already own firearms (why do you need a cool down period when you already own a firearm?). I can have whatever reloading supplies I frigging want and can friggin afford. I don't have to have an alarm installed on my safe, and I don't even have to have a safe if I don't want one. I don't have to have any local police constable sign anything to go buy a firearm.

 

As to registration, they are registered, but only for a limited time, and not at the Federal level (the records have t be destroyed after a period of time, this has gone through the courts already). Again, this is to ensure that the firearms are not easily confiscated by the government in an attempt to disarm the population. As far as permit, no. You have to have a card certifying that you have been tested for demonstrating safe handling of a firearm and basic firearm knowledge. It is not a permit to purchase a firearm. A CCW permit will also suffice (CCW's are now "shall issue" here in California, since the courts ruled that denying them because "self defense" was not a good enough reason, was illegal and unconstitutional).

 

Our firearm laws are becoming less constrictive, not more...and crime is falling where that happens.

[MarinePMI]

 

That's simply not true. The only people in UK who have legally held firearms are the Law-Abiding.

 

'Gun Ownership' as a measurement of 'freedom' is utter bolloqs.

 

The two murdered individuals should have had a 'freedom' to LIFE that, to any sane individual, clearly outweighs the murdering scrote's 'freedom' to wander into walmart or his local pawn shop to buy a pistol.

 

I am personally very happy that the UK's version of trailer trash and other societal dregs can't simply walk into a supermarket and buy lethal weapons in the name of a supposed 'freedom'.

 

 

And - there's absolutely NO POINT in debating this with any US 2nd Amendment advocate.

This is a cultural schism.

 

Love this: 9'13": "YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!" "Yes you can. It's called an amendment."

 

 

You're right, it is a cultural schism. In the UK you guys have been raised to think of the common safety above individual freedoms. In the US we see individual freedoms as what provides for the common safety from government over reach, and that Freedom is paramount to everything else. Who is allowed to get what, and who decides, is a slippery slope. The constitution prevents that, even if well intention-ed. There is a clause for the common safety, but again, it can not violate the constitutional rights of the individual without just cause.

 

As to the Amendments, you'd do well to remember that the first ten, are not really true "amendments". By this I mean, they were not amendments to the constitution after it was ratified, but rather amendments to get it ratified by all the original states (in 1787 IIRC). In a sense, the "original constitution" is the constitutional document plus the first ten "amendments", and as such those first 10 amendments are considered untouchable by most constitutional scholars on both sides of the political arena.

 

So no, you can't just amend the 2nd amendment. Nice play on words though...

[MarinePMI]

 

But he didn't.

Our licensing system is just fine: It's nice to know that, when some UK trailer trash road rages you, or a Royal Mail postie decides to 'go postal' (phek me, they even have to have a phrase for the concept!), on the balance of probability, they won't be killing innocents with pistols bought in a supermarket or pawn shop in the name of 'freedom'.

And this is an example of that schism. The belief and submission to the idea that surrendering the means to defend and protect yourself and loved ones is the true and just thing to do in the name of public safety. It is a belief (and a noble one) that good will triumph over evil, and if everyone behaves (or is forced to behave by the government), society will be a better place. Again, a noble concept.

 

I would argue though, that in the face of the grim realities of crime, theft, unemployment, hunger and ethnic conflict, that noble concept will crumble. Much like the perception of British invincibility, colonialism and global domination, once the perception of a noble, behaved society is fractured it is doomed to come apart. Ripped and torn by greed, avarice and self preservation, where the strong will survive, and the weak and old will perish or be brought to heel on a leash.

 

America will eventually lose it's perception of global power (our current president seems intent on this actually), but even then, we will never, ever, be invaded or subjugated. Too many guns, and "crazy, right winged nuts" who know how to use them.

 

On a side note: If there is one silver lining to the cloud called "the global war on terrorism", it is this; Another generation of american citizen soldiers have been trained, blooded in combat and released back into the general population. In my opinion, that rugged commitment to do violence on behalf of those who can not or will not, is what keeps the sense of individual freedom in our country treasured, defended and safe until the next generation is ready to take up that mantel. Hell'ava schism, eh?

[John MH]

On a side note: If there is one silver lining to the cloud called "the global war on terrorism", it is this; Another generation of american citizen soldiers have been trained, blooded in combat and released back into the general population. In my opinion, that rugged commitment to do violence on behalf of those who can not or will not, is what keeps the sense of individual freedom in our country treasured, defended and safe until the next generation is ready to take up that mantel.

 

There is some thruth in that and its sadly lacking in the vast majority of those who wish to govern us in the United Kingdom.

[Breacher]

I think the reference to knives has been taken out of context.

 

Murder is already a crime. Those who murder have no regard for legislation. So prohibiting firearms will have no effect on those with homicidal intent. They will just use illegally obtained firearms. Or other implements - knife, vehicle, can of petrol, whatever............

 

I stand by my contention that to the layman, a knife is easier to use than a firearm. Loading, using, clearing when it malfunctions, keeping in working order are skills most dont have.

 

An example - I once arrested an individual in possession of a .38 revolver. Loaded with rimless rounds of a smaller calibre. The rounds were loaded by wrapping them in sellotape to make them a snug fit in the cylinder. The Lab stated it would probably not have gone off as rounds had no rim. The individual concerned would have been more dangerous armed with a knife !

 

Then there is the physical act of shooting - I attended a crime scene where 19 rds were discharged in a hallway about 6 metres long. Guess how many hit the man at the other end ? One round !! In the thigh !! Shooting, in particular pistol shooting is not a skill we are born with. Hacking or stabbing with a knife is not hard to do.

 

There is a fundamental irony here - people want to stop individuals committing an unlawful act ( murder ) by making possession of an implement ( firearm ) which can be used in murder, illegal.

 

If the legislation prohibiting murder does prevent murder, how can you expect legislation banning an implement to prevent murder ?

[MarinePMI]

I have to say, up to this point, this has been a fairly civil debate. (I'm quite surprised.)

 

It speaks volumes about the caliber of the members...

[gazzarM1]

Stacka

I don't know how long you have been shooting as a civilian but I suspect since the ban came in on pistols . Myself I bought my first pistol a S and W mod 28 in 1976 this started a lifetime of enjoyment as a competitive shot in several disciplines I still have a box full of medals as a memory of good times

.I shot police pistol with a Smith k38 and was classed as a mastershot, in service pistol I used my SEMI AUTO again classed as a mastershot in practical pistol I used a tricked SEMI AUTO 45 Colt gold cup and classed as expert. Absolutely nothing to do with shooting bad guys or ,fighting with a pistol purely as a sports shooter. Then s'''@ happened and some pervert cost me the sport I loved and miss dearly to this day.

What rankles is when some ex military type exalts an opinion about need for this and that they cant see a reason for pistols, this type of gun and that type of gun for civilian use as if they are in a place with a kind of superior understanding .

I am not anti military in fact the exact opposite I am fully in support of our servicemen and women and admire and am grateful for their efforts and sacrifice. What I am a lot less happy about is the cloaked reference to been there done it and got the nightmares scenario and therefore my opinion is more valuable etc etc.

I have not served my country in the armed services but have worn a uniform in service of my community for almost ten years in my younger days and have seen a lot of shall we say, more than I would wish to have seen in order to have ensured a sound nights sleep on occasion.

Not trying to compare but I don,t go about telling people that I see no need for cars that can exceed the speed limit nor that you need to have a permit for a box of matches and who needs barbecues anyway?

My point is that pistol shooting had and if the powers that be relented and acknowledged fact they enacted bad legislation that there was a cover up of sorts and here you go have your pistols back there is still a potential for some really safe and enjoyable competition.If you don,t understand the need for a particular type of firearm... fine you are entitled to your opinion but I think that you need to expand your horizons a little and try and understand what we regular people used to enjoy to the full.

My final word on this topic and I am still skipping and smiling ...just

[gazzarM1]

And this is an example of that schism. The belief and submission to the idea that surrendering the means to defend and protect yourself and loved ones is the true and just thing to do in the name of public safety. It is a belief (and a noble one) that good will triumph over evil, and if everyone behaves (or is forced to behave by the government), society will be a better place. Again, a noble concept.

 

I would argue though, that in the face of the grim realities of crime, theft, unemployment, hunger and ethnic conflict, that noble concept will crumble. Much like the perception of British invincibility, colonialism and global domination, once the perception of a noble, behaved society is fractured it is doomed to come apart. Ripped and torn by greed, avarice and self preservation, where the strong will survive, and the weak and old will perish or be brought to heel on a leash.

 

America will eventually lose it's perception of global power (our current president seems intent on this actually), but even then, we will never, ever, be invaded or subjugated. Too many guns, and "crazy, right winged nuts" who know how to use them.

 

On a side note: If there is one silver lining to the cloud called "the global war on terrorism", it is this; Another generation of american citizen soldiers have been trained, blooded in combat and released back into the general population. In my opinion, that rugged commitment to do violence on behalf of those who can not or will not, is what keeps the sense of individual freedom in our country treasured, defended and safe until the next generation is ready to take up that mantel. Hell'ava schism, eh?

Again this^^^

[MJR]

 

MarinePMI, on 28 Aug 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

On a side note: If there is one silver lining to the cloud called "the global war on terrorism", it is this; Another generation of american citizen soldiers have been trained, blooded in combat and released back into the general population. In my opinion, that rugged commitment to do violence on behalf of those who can not or will not, is what keeps the sense of individual freedom in our country treasured, defended and safe until the next generation is ready to take up that mantel.

 

Very profound and sadly lacking in the land of UK plc.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand gun related homicide in the USA kills approximately 3.5 times the number of the 9/11 victims year on year. Now before anyone gets upset I am not for one moment condoning terrorism in any way shape or form. In fact I would like to see all perpetrators of such brought to book and answer for their acts. BUT you cannot get away from the fact that US citizens kill more US citizens than terrorist do. That is a huge price to pay for the right to bare arms and firearms ownership. Also the belief that this very right, as a means of the population to keep a government in check, is naive beyond belief. Imagine for one second martial law was imposed in the US. How do you think the population armed with small arms would fair against the force of the U.S. military? I can think of only one outcome - game over. I also hear regularly the right to bare firearms used as a means of self defence but I never hear of an attempted homicide being fought off by a well armed defendant and what of all the children shot In such atrocities?

 

So what about UK firearms licensing? Well I used to enjoy pistol shooting, pre ban, and would dearly love to again. Personally I do not believe they should have been banned. I Also believe my views will not be popular or well received but what the hell. However I also believe that firearms licensing in the UK is inadequate. I believe firearms licensing should be administered by one body and not individual police forces. I believe there should be a competency based test that everyone who wishes to own a firearms should have to pass before being granted a license and owners should recertificate every five years. And before you all start moaning at me, how many of you have been muzzle swept at a rifle range? I have and I dont friggin like it! And I don't care if the firearm was unloaded, it was simple bad practise and that ultimately leads to accidents.I think the background checks should be more stringent especially with regard to medical issues. We all pass a driving test why not a firearms competency test?

However, once passed I believe firearm ownership with regard to calibres should be relaxed somewhat. Retain the need for 'good reason' but relax all the nonsense about different calibres. Allow pistol owners ship but with it introduce rigorous storage arrangements. Oh and don't for one minute think storage at firearms clubs is the answer, I recieved an email only a few weeks ago concerning the theft of firearms from a registered club.....

 

I am a keen shooter and wish to continuing using my firearms in a legal and responsible manner. I also want my wife, kids and wider family to be able to go about their day to day lives without threat of an armed nutter.

[MarinePMI]

On the other hand gun related homicide in the USA kills approximately 3.5 times the number of the 9/11 victims year on year. Now before anyone gets upset I am not for one moment condoning terrorism in any way shape or form. In fact I would like to see all perpetrators of such brought to book and answer for their acts. BUT you cannot get away from the fact that US citizens kill more US citizens than terrorist do. That is a huge price to pay for the right to bare arms and firearms ownership. Also the belief that this very right, as a means of the population to keep a government in check, is naive beyond belief. Imagine for one second martial law was imposed in the US. How do you think the population armed with small arms would fair against the force of the U.S. military? I can think of only one outcome - game over. I also hear regularly the right to bare firearms used as a means of self defence but I never hear of an attempted homicide being fought off by a well armed defendant and what of all the children shot In such atrocities?

 

Statistics can be bandied about anyway someone wants. How many more people are killed a year by automobiles than terrorists? How many people die from heart attacks a year?

 

Naive to think how Americans would do against their own military? I think not. If you think an insurgency in the middle east is bad (where, coincidentally, firearm ownership is technically illegal), can you imagine it in the US? You have to look only to the US civil war to see what the populace is capable of doing, and the repercussions it would have socially on the government. Game over? Yes. But for the government, not the population. It would not survive a war on it's own constituents. Hence the point of the right to bear (not bare) arms.

 

As to hearing of the cases of self defense by firearms? It happens all the time, but the mainstream media never report it. It is actually much more common than you think.

[bradders]

 

I believe around 75% of FAC,s for pistols in NI are/were issued for self defence ?

 

"86% of statistics are made up"

 

Abraham Lincoln-1963

[brown dog]

I have to say, up to this point, this has been a fairly civil debate. (I'm quite surprised.)

 

It speaks volumes about the caliber of the members...

 

Yup. Well done all

 

Jim Jefferies, agree with him or disagree, he is funny:

 

http://www.videobash.com/video_show/jim-jefferies-on-performing-for-the-troops-389569