Another US Campus mass shooting.

[TankRizzo]

creampuff said:

Like I was told recently, "Nobody could ever invade the US. It would be 3,000 miles of house to house searches."

Nobody is, will be or has ever been bothered about 'invading America'. Why are some Americans so paranoid about being invaded? It's not bloody Red Dawn, despite what the NRA love to say about a gun behind every blade of grass.

Americans have accepted that school kids getting gunned down every year is a price worth paying to have 'muh guns'. That's it.

[Lucas CAV]

wjb said:

There are people on this planet who think it's ok for someone to walk into the Asda (Walmart) and buy a shotgun.

Just let that sink in.

But not a Kinder egg

[Matt Harper]

creampuff said:

But less than half of Yanks want more restrictive gun laws; most are in favour of the status quo or want even less restrictions.

I'm not sure that is factual - I live in the US and own several firearms, just to iterate that I'm not joining in the let's all gang-up and attempt to belittle Creampuff club.

I also think the 2nd Amendment argument is a weak one. I'm not sure how anyone can pass a red-face test believing that it is a basic right to have access to firearms, yet a privilege to possess a driving license.

I think that the core objection to gun control is the paranoia around registration of legally owned guns - because registration can lead to confiscation. As has been said time and time again on here whenever one of these hideous atrocities occur, "gun control" if interpreted as disarming of all US citizens, is not practically achievable. It's just too late for that. Comparison with what happened regarding disarming Australian citizens is bogus - the number of citizens and the number of weapons being minuscule compared to the situation in the US.

Psychological evaluation of anyone in possession of, or applying to own a firearm would be a good start. It would be expensive, but easily funded by taxing those who choose to take on the responsibility of gun ownership. Making the sale of firearms through non-authorized weapons dealers illegal, might make a small impression too. Draconian punishment regarding illegal possession of guns might also make a dent - but none of these measures could get close to providing a solution - I don't believe there is one, frankly.

I am also not sure I understand the rationale of 'need' vs 'want' regarding guns. True, nobody 'needs' a gun. Nor do they 'need' life insurance, property insurance, home security systems or even locks on their doors. I don't really understand why it's somehow wrong for those of us who live in a society awash with guns to want similar to provide a layer of potential protection from others in our midst, who are either insane or have criminal intentions against us.

I don't consider firearm ownership to be a right and I don't foresee a situation arising where I would ever have to use a firearm to defend myself or loved ones. If I was required to undergo and pay for psych evaluation in order to maintain possession of my guns I would do so - and by virtue of my concealed carry permit, the authorities are already aware of my ownership of the guns I have responsibility for. If I had to give them up, I would, but I suspect that won't happen any time soon.

[anonymous-user]

blood money.

The NRA’s profit soars as deaths from gun massacres mount

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-s...

[El Guapo]

Let's meet up back here in 4-6 weeks for some more of the same old back-and-forth after the next US mass shooting.

[anonymous-user]

saw this article about australia.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-austral...

'In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings'

only a million guns not the 300+ million in america, but shows it works.

[98elise]

wjb said:

There are people on this planet who think it's ok for someone to walk into the Asda (Walmart) and buy a shotgun.

Just let that sink in.

This is the same country where Kinder Eggs are banned for being too dangerous

[Corpulent Tosser]

wjb said:

There are people on this planet who think it's ok for someone to walk into the Asda (Walmart) and buy a shotgun.

Just let that sink in.

Not sure the relevance of Walmart, people can walk into a shop Britain and buy a shotgun, why does it being a supermarket make any difference ?

[Foppo]

I come to the conclusion that no matter what any sensible person says about this matter it will be dismissed.

If the Majority of Americans don't see the problem then you are dealing with the land of the blind.And one eye is king and that is the gun lobby.

[anonymous-user]

I have to lie down, I agree with a Foppo post. The World is topsy turvy.

Mwah, Fopster.

[AW111]

The Spruce goose said:

saw this article about australia.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-austral...

'In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings'

only a million guns not the 300+ million in america, but shows it works.

And oddly enough, despite some predictable hysteria at the time, hunters can still hunt, and farmers farm.

[Corpulent Tosser]

ash73 said:

Part of a government's responsibility is to protect people from themselves, it will never be popular by definition just do it and be damned.

Politicians generally do what the people want them to do, otherwise they don't get re-elected, that includes gun laws in the US.

Even supposing Obama managed to get a bill passed into law banning most guns and putting restrictions (gun control) on others, all that would happen is people would keep their guns regardless, it would create more criminals.

Bottom line, Americans are not going to give up their guns.

[Dr Jekyll]

Corpulent Tosser said:

wjb said:

There are people on this planet who think it's ok for someone to walk into the Asda (Walmart) and buy a shotgun.

Just let that sink in.

Not sure the relevance of Walmart, people can walk into a shop Britain and buy a shotgun, why does it being a supermarket make any difference ?

I think wjbs point is probably that people like him don't use Asda. Asda and Walmart are used by people like us who obviously are too stupid to be trusted and will go on the rampage the moment we have a firearm.

[Dr Jekyll]

ash73 said:

Simple fact is the majority of people can't be trusted to own a gun, therefore it's completely stupid to let the majority of people decide whether it should be allowed. Part of a government's responsibility is to protect people from themselves, it will never be popular by definition just do it and be damned.

Does this mean you can't have an opinion either? Or do you possess some special insight denied to the rest of us.

[creampuff]

ash73 said:

Simple fact is the majority of people can't be trusted to own a gun, therefore it's completely stupid to let the majority of people decide whether it should be allowed. Part of a government's responsibility is to protect people from themselves, it will never be popular by definition just do it and be damned.

Imagine if Gaz and Tracey and all their chubby offspring got to vote on policies during X factor advert breaks. True democracy would be truely awful.

Most people obviously can be trusted to own a gun, because about 150 million people in the US own a gun and there are not 150 million people out there running amok.

Getting the idea that there is a self-appointed elite who are qualified to decide for the uneducated plebs how they should live their lives has never worked out well.

[WinstonWolf]

creampuff said:

ash73 said:

Simple fact is the majority of people can't be trusted to own a gun, therefore it's completely stupid to let the majority of people decide whether it should be allowed. Part of a government's responsibility is to protect people from themselves, it will never be popular by definition just do it and be damned.

Imagine if Gaz and Tracey and all their chubby offspring got to vote on policies during X factor advert breaks. True democracy would be truely awful.

Most people obviously can be trusted to own a gun, because about 150 million people in the US own a gun and there are not 150 million people out there running amok.

Getting the idea that there is a self-appointed elite who are qualified to decide for the uneducated plebs how they should live their lives has never worked out well.

How many gun murders are acceptable to protect the amendment?

[creampuff]

WinstonWolf said:

How many gun murders are acceptable to protect the amendment?

You have asked that question at least 3 times now; I haven't answered because it is a foolish question borne out of your desire to ban guns, which is not realistic.

I've asked you several times how somebody is going to get shot shooting a 22 at a shooting range. You haven't bothered to answer that either.

[WinstonWolf]

creampuff said:

WinstonWolf said:

How many gun murders are acceptable to protect the amendment?

You have asked that question at least 3 times now; I haven't answered because you are too stupid to ask a sensible question.

It's an excellent question because it forces you to think about the number of people who are being murdered unnecessarily every day.

The fact that you refuse to answer merely confirms that you have your head buried in the sand (I'm being polite, it's probably planted firmly elsewhere)

Let's say twenty five thousand gun murders per year, is that a price worth paying?

[creampuff]

It is a pointless question because most of the homicides are gang related using illegally held firearms. You keep banging on about the second amendment, but it irrelevant because the second amendment does not give criminals the right to guns and existing laws prohibit criminals from having guns, but criminals being criminals ignore those laws and then shoot other criminals.

Maybe you should move to Mexico, they have made private gun ownership very very difficult. Oh wait, they have about 4 times the homicide rate as the United States.

Edited by creampuff on Saturday 3rd October 12:46

[WinstonWolf]

creampuff said:

It is a pointless question because most of the homicides are gang related using illegally held firearms. You keep banging on about the second amendment, but it irrelevant because the second amendment does not give criminals the right to guns and existing laws prohibit criminals from having guns.

I understand it's a difficult question as you need to actually think about how many gun murders are acceptable. Twenty five thousand a year, is that OK?

It's not banging on, it's forcing you to think...