American Gun Law

[Canker_Canison]

The US school children didnt make that choice though... In this country our social services remove children from harmful or dangerous environments, to protect them. In the US the innocent poor kids are born, raised and have to live within such a screwed up culture. So, even if its not the country we live in, forgive the few of us who speak out on behalf of these innocents who do have to live there.

You can blame Ron & Nancy for that, not guns.

[Rodbouy]

It has nothing to do with us though?? seriously.. if americans started paroozing our way of life we would be quick to slam it..

If they want to kill themselves.. let them.. it seems all they're capable of anyway is killing their own.. even their counterparts..

Dont care what country it is, I dont like seeing kids being killed.

But hey if it doest bother you.

But then I dont take opinions from EDL supporters.

[Lainie]

i havent read all the posts in this thread as i got sick of the arguing.

now in my opinion

someone that wanted to mass kill will mass kill with guns, knives, explosives whatever etc

i dont see the need for anyone to have a gun whether a hobby or not.

ive never even bought any of my nephews a gun after the dunblane tragedy. i absolutely hate to see a lil boy running around with a gun shouting bang bang. what are the parents thinking? ive never bought them a knife either. thousands of other toys to chose from.

banning guns and knives wont make any difference. ok in this country thousands were handed in but for every 1 that was handed in there are prob another 10 out there if not more.

[dustymech]

"NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS OF Dec. 19, 2012 - 2,640"

This in the city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

I suppose this proves that gun control laws do keep criminal use of guns down.

I think I will keep my guns thank you.

MOLON LABE

[darrenhyland]

i havent read all the posts in this thread as i got sick of the arguing.

now in my opinion

someone that wanted to mass kill will mass kill with guns, knives, explosives whatever etc

i dont see the need for anyone to have a gun whether a hobby or not.

ive never even bought any of my nephews a gun after the dunblane tragedy. i absolutely hate to see a lil boy running around with a gun shouting bang bang. what are the parents thinking? ive never bought them a knife either. thousands of other toys to chose from.

banning guns and knives wont make any difference. ok in this country thousands were handed in but for every 1 that was handed in there are prob another 10 out there if not more.

That IMO is the most sensible statment from an anti gun perspective.......you dont want guns but agree criminals and loonies will obtain them from other sources.....therefore criminalising and punishing legal gun holders for the actions of those who operate outside the law is ludicrous and blatently obvious that the powers that be used the easier option as taking guns from law abiding citizens is a hell of a lot easier than disarming those outside the law......its just lip service to the anti's

[Kalipo]

Dont care what country it is, I dont like seeing kids being killed.

But hey if it doest bother you.

But then I dont take opinions from EDL supporters.

I dont neither

[Hoppy01]

Am really suprised at some of the comments on this thread that defend guns!
A wonder how many would have the same opinion if they were American and going through a Xmas from Hell because one of their beautiful children was slaughtered by a maniac with multiple guns?
Trouble is, they wont put themselves in their shoes, it would be too f****** terrifying to contemplate but if you did,, you would want every gun on this planet destroyed..

Its not like Hook had a stray 6 shooter, here is what he had.

223-caliber Bushmaster XM15 rifle
10mm Glock 20sf
9mm Sig Sauer handgun
Shotgun
45 Henry
.30 Enfield
.22 Marlin Rifle

He didn't buy the weapons, his Mum did and it was fully legal under American law for home defence..
So how much firepower do you need to defend a home, a mean who s breaking into your house,, the Terminator?

The police state that he carefully shot his victims multiple times, he wasn't content in wounding innocent kiddies, he made sure they stayed down soaked in blood,, its a fu***** disgrace..

You would think that the gun associations would do the right thing and take a vow of silence and stfu,, nope, these retarded insensitive pr**** come out with stupid statements like arming teachers and the only way to kill a bad guy with a gun is give a good guy one,, give me a gun and il shoot the pr*** that said that bile.

So we are saying that banning guns wouldn't make any difference?
Really, you see Hooks Mum was a gun nut like many Americans and like many Americans she could and did buy many different types, some of which are designed for multiple targets with different calibers.
If they were banned with stiff sentences then a doubt people would be so eager to obtain 7 different types, never mind high powered rifles.
Chances are Hook wouldn't have got anywhere near that kinda firepower and lives would have been saved.
A mean, how many gun runners do you know where you could easily buy the amount that he had?

When so many innocent lives are taken by weapons so powerful at a place of education,, then something needs to be done....

[darrenhyland]

Am really suprised at some of the comments on this thread that defend guns!
A wonder how many would have the same opinion if they were American and going through a Xmas from Hell because one of their beautiful children was slaughtered by a maniac with multiple guns?
Trouble is, they wont put themselves in their shoes, it would be too f****** terrifying to contemplate but if you did,, you would want every gun on this planet destroyed..

Its not like Hook had a stray 6 shooter, here is what he had.

223-caliber Bushmaster XM15 rifle
10mm Glock 20sf
9mm Sig Sauer handgun
Shotgun
45 Henry
.30 Enfield
.22 Marlin Rifle

He didn't buy the weapons, his Mum did and it was fully legal under American law for home defence..
So how much firepower do you need to defend a home, a mean who s breaking into your house,, the Terminator?

The police state that he carefully shot his victims multiple times, he wasn't content in wounding innocent kiddies, he made sure they stayed down soaked in blood,, its a fu***** disgrace..

You would think that the gun associations would do the right thing and take a vow of silence and stfu,, nope, these retarded insensitive pr**** come out with stupid statements like arming teachers and the only way to kill a bad guy with a gun is give a good guy one,, give me a gun and il shoot the pr*** that said that bile.

So we are saying that banning guns wouldn't make any difference?
Really, you see Hooks Mum was a gun nut like many Americans and like many Americans she could and did buy many different types, some of which are designed for multiple targets with different calibers.
If they were banned with stiff sentences then a doubt people would be so eager to obtain 7 different types, never mind high powered rifles.
Chances are Hook wouldn't have got anywhere near that kinda firepower and lives would have been saved.
A mean, how many gun runners do you know where you could easily buy the amount that he had?

When so many innocent lives are taken by weapons so powerful at a place of education,, then something needs to be done....

I got a similar gun collection.......am i a gun nut about to blow half a school away????? I pride myself in my stringent safety regime when i use and store my guns....but you need to realise a loonie is a loonie....guns didnt make him that way.....and stringent gun control wont prevent a determined nut job from mayhem and murder......guns dont kill people....people kill people.....we live in the real world, it would take a century to disarm america.....so the only effective way to ensure the safety of our loved ones is to fight fire with fire....

[Hoppy01]

I got a similar gun collection.......am i a gun nut about to blow half a school away????? I pride myself in my stringent safety regime when i use and store my guns....but you need to realise a loonie is a loonie....guns didnt make him that way.....and stringent gun control wont prevent a determined nut job from mayhem and murder......guns dont kill people....people kill people.....we live in the real world, it would take a century to disarm america.....so the only effective way to ensure the safety of our loved ones is to fight fire with fire....

The old guns don't kill people argument, maybe you should look at my post again, it was his Mums guns, he got access to several high powered guns and went on a shooting frenzy, by having such easy access to such lethal weapons he was able to cause maximum damage.
He didn't just shoot people once, he was so cold that he shot them several times to make sure the victims were dead.
If you and your fellow Americans are happy having the need for armed marksmen at school and fail to acknowledge your country has a problem as a result, then you are beyond help.
In Britain most people would be outraged at such drastic action, but i would be a Helluva lot more outraged if a found out the weapons were bought over a counter in a shop.

As for you being a gun nut about to blow away half a school, well you tell me, how do you spot a loony pal, how do you spot a loony buying high powered weapons?
You might pride yourself on securing your guns but its pretty obvious that other people don't give a s****.
"We live in the real world"
Some of us do and have no need for a arsenal of weapons.

I accept your country has different laws and culture and its your right to defend your property but how many guns and how much fire power do you need?
Just out of curiosity, why do you own so many guns?

[darrenhyland]

Firstly i am not American nor do i live there....i am Irish....and i have a selection of guns as i am a competitive target shooter.....i dont hunt for food or any of that BS and i am not tooling up for a zombie apocalypse either.....try shooting @600 yards with a .22 rifle....that is what i use the .223 for....try shooting a .223 in a .22 gallery comp....downright dangerous!!.....the handguns i use are strictly for range use only.....its my hobby....like golf or snooker....which by coincedence golf clubs and pool/snooker cues have been used as deadly weapons also....dont see a ban on them.......as i said before, America has serious problems with it's lenient gun policy's, they need to approach it with a similar structure to Irelands gun laws.....reasonable delay in application process inc. stringent background checks aswell as routine checks on safe storage etc.....but if you want to label me as a gun nut....go right ahead....i am a licensed firearm holder because i am of sound mind and good charachter...otherwise my Chief Super wouldnt have authorised my licenses....the real world is that guns are here to stay....we need to regulate them properly and fairly...a gun is not a weapon until it is taken up with bad intent....

[Hoppy01]

Firstly i am not American nor do i live there....i am Irish....and i have a selection of guns as i am a competitive target shooter.....i dont hunt for food or any of that BS and i am not tooling up for a zombie apocalypse either.....try shooting @600 yards with a .22 rifle....that is what i use the .223 for....try shooting a .223 in a .22 gallery comp....downright dangerous!!.....the handguns i use are strictly for range use only.....its my hobby....like golf or snooker....which by coincedence golf clubs and pool/snooker cues have been used as deadly weapons also....dont see a ban on them.......as i said before, America has serious problems with it's lenient gun policy's, they need to approach it with a similar structure to Irelands gun laws.....reasonable delay in application process inc. stringent background checks aswell as routine checks on safe storage etc.....but if you want to label me as a gun nut....go right ahead....i am a licensed firearm holder because i am of sound mind and good charachter...otherwise my Chief Super wouldnt have authorised my licenses....the real world is that guns are here to stay....we need to regulate them properly and fairly...a gun is not a weapon until it is taken up with bad intent....

In that case i apologise for calling you a gun nut, i picked you up wrong and i am sorry.
I agree with most of your last post, what makes me angry is the attitude of many Americans having guns for all the wrong reasons.
Having guns for sport is one thing (that i have no objection to) but having a arsenal of weapons for so called home defence is another, having marksmen at schools highlights that the problem is out of control..
Anyway, like a said i am sorry if i offended you, it wasn't my intention.

[darrenhyland]

no problem lad, apology accepted....i am glad you accept my points in the last post....i dont agree with current gun policy in America either. I find it appauling that you can buy guns with almost no challenge or checks to your competence and history...as i said in previous posts, i dont advocate arming staff in schools but if an armed person were at that school then the scenario may not have been as bleak....but to be honest if no guns were available to the sick f**k he still would have used knives and fire or worse...IED'S can be made by any 14 year old in the kitchen....the advent of the internet has information freely available on how to manufacture all classes of tools of murder in the family home....guns can exist peacefully with people....people just need to change respect and accept them

[Snowy79]

One major problem as people highlight is it's the people that kill people and sadly people change. You can have someone who is relatively sane who suffers a few of lifes set backs which throws him over the edge. Or you can have someone who is just evil but sane on the outside. If any of these have easy access to guns you're asking for trouble. Why take the chance ?

If you want to defend your house you should get a licence for home/personal defence and be limited to a low calibre weapon with a magazine which holds a maximum of 5 rounds. This should be more than enough for defence. If you want to fire on a range you should get a seperate licence which you only get if you can prove it's for range use etc and the weapon should be stored at the range similar to a military armoury. Farmers and those that require weapons for pest control etc could also be licenced and controlled.

An armed guard isn't much use unless he's realistically going to get a chance to use his weapon or even be able to fire it accurately when getting fired upon. I've trained hundreds of soldiers in the 9mm Browning prior to doing a tour of Ireland and you'd be surprised how many struggled to hit a head sized target at 25m. They had plenty of time to take aim. Imagine what it would be like if someone was shootng to them. Add to this someone walking up to them with a concealed firearm. Popping one through their brain and then taking their weapon off of them. They've now got two guns to kill even more people.

Common sense must show that even if you were in the school with your gun in hand ready to protect the kids, someone could easily walk into any classroom and open fire. By the time you hear the first shot then realise it actually was a gun going off, then worked out what direcion it came from the firer could have emptied about 200 rounds into people and changed magazines half a dozen times. Also the teacher would be the first person shot before they could react.

[darrenhyland]

One major problem as people highlight is it's the people that kill people and sadly people change. You can have someone who is relatively sane who suffers a few of lifes set backs which throws him over the edge. Or you can have someone who is just evil but sane on the outside. If any of these have easy access to guns you're asking for trouble. Why take the chance ?

If you want to defend your house you should get a licence for home/personal defence and be limited to a low calibre weapon with a magazine which holds a maximum of 5 rounds. This should be more than enough for defence. If you want to fire on a range you should get a seperate licence which you only get if you can prove it's for range use etc and the weapon should be stored at the range similar to a military armoury. Farmers and those that require weapons for pest control etc could also be licenced and controlled.

An armed guard isn't much use unless he's realistically going to get a chance to use his weapon or even be able to fire it accurately when getting fired upon. I've trained hundreds of soldiers in the 9mm Browning prior to doing a tour of Ireland and you'd be surprised how many struggled to hit a head sized target at 25m. They had plenty of time to take aim. Imagine what it would be like if someone was shootng to them. Add to this someone walking up to them with a concealed firearm. Popping one through their brain and then taking their weapon off of them. They've now got two guns to kill even more people.

Common sense must show that even if you were in the school with your gun in hand ready to protect the kids, someone could easily walk into any classroom and open fire. By the time you hear the first shot then realise it actually was a gun going off, then worked out what direcion it came from the firer could have emptied about 200 rounds into people and changed magazines half a dozen times. Also the teacher would be the first person shot before they could react.

i agree people change that is why a license is for 3 years and after that you must reapply as if you are applying for a first license....in ireland any signs of instability in a person will lead to a visit by the local sargent to collect your guns until you are proven ok to get them back...you cant license a gun for home defence in ireland or the uk for that matter...i also agree that an armed staff member in a school would be ineffective at the best of times...but it would produce a certain deterrent value to any nut job....it is not an ideal situation to have to be educated under armed protection....it is a worse situation to be educated with the threat of death with no protection what so ever....society has neglected the duty of care for the mentaly ill....you reap what you sow.

[darrenhyland]

Gun control FACTS
Taking this from another forum I follow...











http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Oh, yeah. Virginia has seen firearms sales rise 73% while gun-related violent crime dropped 24%. http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/lo...9bb30f31a.html

Just ask the CDC and National Academy of Sciences how well gun control works...

Quote:
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control reported on ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. CDC's conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that the laws reduced gun violence.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/o...?_s=PM:OPINION

CDC study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

National Academy of Sciences study: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

That's right: not a single law or gun control measure that could be credibly linked to a reduction in violent crime, suicides or accidents.

Also, here's a link to the Department of Justice study that failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/re..._final2004.pdf

And let's not forget ole Switzerland.

You know, the same country that requires all males, with the exception of those deemed incompetent, to own an assault rifle and also has the second lowest (pretty sure it's the second) crime rate.

Let's also visit Australia

Quote:
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Quote:
Back in 1994, when the U.S. Congress was debating whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for their militia service and are required to keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Bradley responded: "My guess is--Swiss are pretty dull--so my guess is that probably didn't happen."

Actually, for those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or by train, you see shooting ranges all over the country, but only a few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking, and taking the tram with rifles over the shoulder, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye (in the U.S. a SWAT Team might do you in).

Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is really just the national sport, although it has the deadly serious function of being the backbone of the national defense.

Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.

According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England.

The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
More: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/artic...ime-swiss.html

Quote:
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

? 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
? 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
? 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp