US Journalists Shot Dead On Air
Discussion
Eclassy said:
Easy to sit in the comfort of your home in the UK posting stupid memes to real life problems. You wouldnt last 24 hours in the city where I am from.
My late dad lost and eye on one of this home invasions. And if you care to know my family was subject to other invasions at home and at work, car jackings and street muggings. We werent unlucky, it just comes with the territory.
Plonker
Nottingham?My late dad lost and eye on one of this home invasions. And if you care to know my family was subject to other invasions at home and at work, car jackings and street muggings. We werent unlucky, it just comes with the territory.
Plonker
RobinBanks said:
Matt Harper said:
walm said:
I am not a law talking guy but presumably you pass a piece of legislation that says "gun ownership and the sale of guns is now illegal".
Do you think that would work? One part of that (amongst many) is the reason I gave to walm.
Matt Harper said:
I know...... we could pass a piece of legislation that says, "shooting people is now illegal" - oh, wait......
We agree there. And even if all (or most) of the guns in the US were collected tomorrow and destroyed, we've seen that it's perfectly possible to smuggle guns and drugs and other illegal items into the US or UK. One difference there is that the people buying the smuggled guns would be 99% criminals who want them for robberies and murders and so on, whereas at the moment the majority of Americans who buy guns are not criminals.
Eclassy said:
In my home country where citizens are banned from owning guns (except hunting guns), I was a victim of armed home invasions 3 times in a 6 month period. On 2 of the 3 occassions I would have been able to take out the robbers if I was armed with a pistol.
Or you'd have got into a shootout and possibly be dead / sustained life changing injuries. Not having gun quite possibly saved your life. So you lost some money....that's replaceable.
RobinBanks said:
That won't work because unlike in the UK when many guns were bought by the government in 1997 and 1998 and destroyed, that was possible because they had been previously registered and were known to the government.
In the US, people who have guns that aren't registered (bought in states where there was no requirement to do so) could simply not give their guns in.
So then there would still many many, many unknown guns out there.
You mean like the UK then? People who want to have unregistered guns have them.In the US, people who have guns that aren't registered (bought in states where there was no requirement to do so) could simply not give their guns in.
So then there would still many many, many unknown guns out there.
Mastodon2 said:
You mean like the UK then? People who want to have unregistered guns have them.
Exactly like that. And I bet that most gun crime in the UK is carried out with unregistered guns.Either way - my point wasn't that relevant to the UK. My point was simply that people say that the US should simply ban all guns without comprehending that there would still be plenty of functional guns in circulation if the government confiscated all the ones they know of or can find.
RobinBanks said:
walm said:
I am not a law talking guy but presumably you pass a piece of legislation that says "gun ownership and the sale of guns is now illegal".
It's got to be more practically applicable than "force a fat man down chimneys with presents for the kids once a year".
Obviously you might need the rare exception such as the military and genuine sportsmen.
That won't work because unlike in the UK when many guns were bought by the government in 1997 and 1998 and destroyed, that was possible because they had been previously registered and were known to the government.It's got to be more practically applicable than "force a fat man down chimneys with presents for the kids once a year".
Obviously you might need the rare exception such as the military and genuine sportsmen.
In the US, people who have guns that aren't registered (bought in states where there was no requirement to do so) could simply not give their guns in.
So then there would still many many, many unknown guns out there.
- States attempting to restrict a class of guns (handguns) was unconstitutional
- The US constitution, when referring to an armed "militia" did not mean an organised group militia, it meant individual American citizens.
Guns are not the problem in the United States. An entire branch of my family is in the US, I've spent a long time in the US, I've shot a lot of guns. I go out with my family and shoot guns, they bring their kids and everybody shoots guns. The overwhelming majority of gun use is safe and lawful. The overwhelming majority of the small proportion of unlawful gun use is gangbangers shooting at other gangbangers. And you know, general crime in the US is a lot lower than in the UK. My relos is suburban L.A. often leave their back door unlocked.
Felons (i.e. those convicted of serious crimes) are already banned from gun ownership. Background checks which ban unstable or mentally ill people from owning guns would be a good idea. This would do a lot to reduce suicides and mass shootings. Banning guns in general is unnecessary and unconstitutional anyway, so you may as well stop discussing gun bans unless you want to change the US constitution.
Since the banning of handguns in the UK, the rate of gun crime in the UK has gone up, not down.
I agree with you, don't doubt that. I just think that banning and confiscating all the guns they could get their hands on (as you said, impossible constitutionally) would be a futile exercise anyway.
I do not think that the guns themselves are guilty anyway. It's the attitude to their use which is thankfully a minority of people.
The view "Why don't the idiots just ban guns?" is far too simplistic. It's a complex issue. And I don't have the energy or inclination (or to be honest the entire depth of knowledge) to present a full argument to show it.
Apart from which, nobody would care.
I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. I just present what I know (or understand) without bias.
I do not think that the guns themselves are guilty anyway. It's the attitude to their use which is thankfully a minority of people.
The view "Why don't the idiots just ban guns?" is far too simplistic. It's a complex issue. And I don't have the energy or inclination (or to be honest the entire depth of knowledge) to present a full argument to show it.
Apart from which, nobody would care.
I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. I just present what I know (or understand) without bias.
If there was ever a collapse of government and lawlessness (and your general zombie apocalypse scenario), I'd much rather be in the US with a lot of guns than in the UK with few guns. When things go pear shaped, the criminals get guns and the innocent people get shot. You can google up Mexico, where there are FAR more homicides than the US and it's hard for ordinary Mexicans to own guns.
Edited by creampuff on Thursday 27th August 20:05
creampuff said:
RobinBanks said:
walm said:
I am not a law talking guy but presumably you pass a piece of legislation that says "gun ownership and the sale of guns is now illegal".
It's got to be more practically applicable than "force a fat man down chimneys with presents for the kids once a year".
Obviously you might need the rare exception such as the military and genuine sportsmen.
That won't work because unlike in the UK when many guns were bought by the government in 1997 and 1998 and destroyed, that was possible because they had been previously registered and were known to the government.It's got to be more practically applicable than "force a fat man down chimneys with presents for the kids once a year".
Obviously you might need the rare exception such as the military and genuine sportsmen.
In the US, people who have guns that aren't registered (bought in states where there was no requirement to do so) could simply not give their guns in.
So then there would still many many, many unknown guns out there.
- States attempting to restrict a class of guns (handguns) was unconstitutional
- The US constitution, when referring to an armed "militia" did not mean an organised group militia, it meant individual American citizens.
Guns are not the problem in the United States. An entire branch of my family is in the US, I've spent a long time in the US, I've shot a lot of guns. I go out with my family and shoot guns, they bring their kids and everybody shoots guns. The overwhelming majority of gun use is safe and lawful. The overwhelming majority of the small proportion of unlawful gun use is gangbangers shooting at other gangbangers. And you know, general crime in the US is a lot lower than in the UK. My relos is suburban L.A. often leave their back door unlocked.
Felons (i.e. those convicted of serious crimes) are already banned from gun ownership. Background checks which ban unstable or mentally ill people from owning guns would be a good idea. This would do a lot to reduce suicides and mass shootings. Banning guns in general is unnecessary and unconstitutional anyway, so you may as well stop discussing gun bans unless you want to change the US constitution.
Since the banning of handguns in the UK, the rate of gun crime in the UK has gone up, not down.
JumboBeef said:
Wasn't slavery once part of the constitution?
No, it was not addressed in the US constitution until it was outlawed in the 13th amendment. It was obliquely referred to only in the "3/5th compromise" and the ability of the government to restrict the slave trade.
It is summarised here:
http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-con...
Edited by creampuff on Thursday 27th August 20:30
walm said:
Ricky Gervais is getting some stick from the morons for tweeting anti-gun.
His best comment: "My Twitter feed at the moment proves that only the angriest, most unstable people want everyone to have guns."
Perhaps it is because your average law abiding Yank, doesn't like some foreigner telling them what they can and cannot have in their own country.His best comment: "My Twitter feed at the moment proves that only the angriest, most unstable people want everyone to have guns."
Edited by creampuff on Thursday 27th August 20:37
creampuff said:
If there was ever a collapse of government and lawlessness (and your general zombie apocalypse scenario), I'd much rather be in the US with a lot of guns than in the UK with few guns. When things go pear shaped, the criminals get guns and the innocent people get shot. You can google up Mexico, where there are FAR more homicides than the US and it's hard for ordinary Mexicans to own guns.
If there was a collapse of government and lawlessness, there would be no criminals as there would be no law. I'd rather there be less guns in that scenario, but i'd be happy with having my own arsenal. People who are normally law abiding would put themselves and their own first, or they'd die. Edited by creampuff on Thursday 27th August 20:05
In a zombie apocalypse scenario...
Eclassy said:
Why do we always have this knee jerk reaction to gun crime in the US. There are over 300 million guns in the US and it will take 2 generations or more to see any effect of a gun ban.
In my home country where citizens are banned from owning guns (except hunting guns), I was a victim of armed home invasions 3 times in a 6 month period. On 2 of the 3 occassions I would have been able to take out the robbers if I was armed with a pistol.
Taking guns out of the hands of citizens will leave criminals with a the guns and jn a country like the US where there are so many bloodthirsty crims, the citizens will be at their mercy.
Whilst I understand the reporter's fathers grief, he didnt make a lot of sense. He said he supports the 2nd amendment but wanted the government to take guns away from crazys. Under current legislation and whatever he may propose, this killer would still be able to buy a gun. Being angry all the time and always playing the race card is not/will not become a reason to refuse someone the ownership of a gun.
Was it the police doing the armed invasions?In my home country where citizens are banned from owning guns (except hunting guns), I was a victim of armed home invasions 3 times in a 6 month period. On 2 of the 3 occassions I would have been able to take out the robbers if I was armed with a pistol.
Taking guns out of the hands of citizens will leave criminals with a the guns and jn a country like the US where there are so many bloodthirsty crims, the citizens will be at their mercy.
Whilst I understand the reporter's fathers grief, he didnt make a lot of sense. He said he supports the 2nd amendment but wanted the government to take guns away from crazys. Under current legislation and whatever he may propose, this killer would still be able to buy a gun. Being angry all the time and always playing the race card is not/will not become a reason to refuse someone the ownership of a gun.
Eclassy said:
Whilst I understand the reporter's fathers grief, he didnt make a lot of sense. He said he supports the 2nd amendment but wanted the government to take guns away from crazys. Under current legislation and whatever he may propose, this killer would still be able to buy a gun. Being angry all the time and always playing the race card is not/will not become a reason to refuse someone the ownership of a gun.
It seems this nutter had made a some threats, was known to the station staff to be a nutter and had posted a number of nutter online comments. It would be sensible to modify gun laws so that this was sufficient to prohibit gun ownership. Perhaps also combined with allowing a subsequent search warrant to be issued so the police can check for illegally held guns. Things like this would be practical and help prevent nutters from getting guns, while being consistent with the second amendment right to bear arms and also consistent with the overwhelming majority of safe and lawful gun owners.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff