U.S.A Second Amendment re-think

[Lincoln 7]

That's simply falsifying figures to produce false statistics. Not the same as manipulating a statistic. If 110 children out of 200 pass an exam that is 55%. That is a statistic. If someone falsifies the figures to make it 130 it is the evidence which has been manipulated not the statistic.

Whichever way you look at it, it's still just number crunching to obtain statistical results.

Jim.

Lincoln .7

[Mr Creosote]

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

Madness. Utter madness. How on earth did such a great nation as America get this whole gun thing so horribly wrong, and when will the people collectively have the balls to say enough is enough?

[charliehunt]

Whichever way you look at it, it's still just number crunching to obtain statistical results.

Jim.

Lincoln .7

Yes, but that's not manipulating statistics...but never mind.....

[charliehunt]

Madness. Utter madness. How on earth did such a great nation as America get this whole gun thing so horribly wrong, and when will the people collectively have the balls to say enough is enough?

Well "they got it so horribly wrong", as you put it, because the whole basis of the development and growth of their nation was entirely different from ours, so there laws were designed for a purpose. If and when those who oppose it outnumber those who do not.

[kev35]

"Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have
been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather
continue to risk the alternative?"

Yes, I will admit that. Now will Mr. Lapierre admit that had the Mother of Adam Lanza not had those weapons in her possession in the family home that those 26 innocent lives lost a week ago today might actually be looking forward to sitting down to Christmas dinner with their families next Tuesday? Will he concede that arming more and more people in more and more situations just might NOT be the answer?

Of course not!

As long as he can keep his toys all will be well.

Regards,

kev35

[Lincoln 7]

If they want gun ownership as badly as the NRA seem to think every American, does, then take them back to the days of "Brown Bess" Flintlocks, Black powder weapons only, They were not altogether accurate, and took time to load and fire.IF ONLY
Now on this evenings news they are talking about putting armed guards into every school for protection, like a lot of Airlines do, for flight passengers.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[skyskooter]

A relative who recently emigrated from England to the USA with her young children told her father that Kinder Egg chocolates are banned there because
they contain a small toy which the child might swallow. Her father is visiting
her for Christmas. He is wondering whether to pack a six-shooter.

[Creaking Door]

A pretty uncompromising stance from the NRA one week after the tragedy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20815130

“Mr LaPierre called for a national database of the mentally ill.”

Except that Adam Lanza wouldn’t have shown up on such a database.....as he wasn’t ‘mentally ill’.

Maybe such a database isn’t such a bad idea; the obvious place to start would be an assessment of the mental-health of those in possession of firearms surely. Maybe the entire membership of the NRA would like to demonstrate their confidence in this idea by submitting themselves for a mental-health examination. Any members of the NRA that haven’t had a recent mental-health assessment should, of course, surrender their weapons until such time as they have had an assessment. And to ensure that such a database is effective in rooting-out the ‘mentally ill’ it would be essential that those on the database could be correctly identified, so, photographs, fingerprints and (possibly) DNA samples would need to be submitted; also, to prioritise those that present the most risk, it would probably be necessary to record exactly what type and number of firearm each member of the NRA possessed. To accomplish all this, obviously, it would be necessary for agents of the US government to visit each member of the NRA at home. And, because mental-health can change rapidly, these mental-health assessments would need to be carried-out on a regular basis.

“Mr LaPierre told reporters ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’”

Presumably he didn’t mean more people like Nancy Lanza?

And as for the argument about ‘violent video-games and films portraying murder as a way of life’, is Mr LaPierre proposing a blanket ban on these? I thought that one of the arguments that the NRA used was that any sort of ban on guns would punish the law-abiding; does this argument not apply to law-abiding players of video-games or law-abiding watchers of films?

[Lincoln 7]

I was quite shocked at the fact that the Mayor of NewYork, Bloomsberg stated that 40% of weapons were sold without background checks.
I was also surprised to learn that a "Friend or relative" could buy/sell a weapon, again without any checks being made.in most USA States.
As for most of these mass shootings being carried out by mentaly "Disturbed" gun owners, at what stage doe's one become mentaly ill?. Any gun owner can be fit when he comes home from work, and, as an example, have an argument with his wife, and suddenly flips, gets his gun out and kills her.
Checks should be carried out to see if a person is mentaly ill or disturbed was mentioned, again, what gun owner is going to submit himself to a medical examination?, and what time period would they be between?,
Make schools a gun free place, and put ex Police Officers, and Fireman who would be armed, in the schools to protect the children, we would then get the situation whereby the perp would go and get a "More powerful" weapon than that of the protector.
It's not as easy as those who are advocating these changes make it seem.
Tighter checks are going to be made?, such as what, no one as far as I can see has stated exactly what is meant by this.
Whilst I agree, that the 2nd was good when first passed by Congress, things have got out of hand.
What I would like to know, is just HOW it got out of hand, and by what means?,
It seems it may be by the NRA making large payments to various Statesmen to get new Laws passed, under the counter so as to speak.
If they want a better security arrangement for gun, weapon ownership, the answer is simple, adopt the U.Ks method of application of a shotgun or Firearm Certificate, But they have gone a bridge too far,, and are now only just realising, enough is enough.
Obama is gutless, about doing anything else other than paying lip service, just to keep office.
I think also, that the right to own weapons, and background checks and the rules and regs should be the same in ALL the States, after all, a gun is a gun, is a gun.
Just a thought.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[paul178]

In view of the NRA's statement about good guys and bad guys I have a question.

Do the bad guys still wear black hats and the good guys white ones?

They used to in the cowboy films I saw when I was young.

[Lincoln 7]

Morning Paul, That made me think about your question.Many times when taking statements from people, who have seen face to face the Criminal who had committed a Crime, "What did they look like?" and the times folks would say, "Well, average height, average build" etc, as if every Criminal is steriotyped, which obviously wrong, as we know. Which begs the question, how do you tell, in the USA who is a Baddie, and who is the good guy?, when it comes to gun ownership?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[charliehunt]

how do you tell, in the USA who is a Baddie, and who is the good guy?, when it comes to gun ownership?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Exactly and not just in the USA. You can be "bad" and/or mad as a hatter and still acquire a firearm. It's back to the real problem Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Why? Why do these tragedies take place? These questions are not on top of the list, sadly. It is always about taking away people's rights and choices because that's easier than trying to solve the really difficult problem.

[Lincoln 7]

The only way to stop what's happening, is to scrap all the current gun laws, and re write the 2nd, which for some reason is impossible, because the idiots there fail to keep records that can track gun ownership from point of sale to the weapon being scrapped or permanently disposed of.
That is one miracle however that will never happen.
Jim.
Lincoln .

[charliehunt]

That will do nothing whatsoever to solve the problem. If you are insane enough to commit such an act you will either find a way of acquiring a firearm or find another way of committing the crime.

In any case the amendment is never going to be rewritten so Americans are going to have to apply themselves to addressing the real problem.

[kev35]

Exactly and not just in the USA. You can be "bad" and/or mad as a hatter and still acquire a firearm. It's back to the real problem Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Why? Why do these tragedies take place? These questions are not on top of the list, sadly. It is always about taking away people's rights and choices because that's easier than trying to solve the really difficult problem.

I've said it before, with rights come responsibilities, and until that point gets rammed home the gun lobby will never take any notice. In fact they'll never take any notice anyway. LaPierre wants a National database of those suffering mental illness. Having read his statement I strongly suspect that should such a list ever materialise he might find himself on it.

Yes, you can, as charlie says, be mad or bad and still acquire a firearm. All of us suffer from fleeting moments of madness or badness. The massive difference between us here and the US is that should most of us in the UK suffer from one of these moments, we can't just reach into the wardrobe and select any one of the semi automatic weapons in our own personal arsenal and nip out to a local school/cinema/college and vent our spleen. Most of us in the UK don't have the ability to do that however insane we might be. In the US the majority do because of the availability of legally held weapons.

Charlie suggests it is about taking away people's rights but the problem is that the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment seem to be more important than the rights of twenty children to live to see this Christmas.

The tragedy of all this is that it is a discussion which will take place regularly. Some Americans will be burying their children whilst others will be holding theirs close. Others will sit polishing their weapons and vowing that no Government will ever take their rights away, no Sirree!

Regards,

kev35

[charliehunt]

You make fair points, Kev, but overlook my comment about the seeming inability to tackle the real problem.

You can draw an analogy with your point that by removing peoples' automatic right to own and drive a car you will enable some families to hold their children and loved ones close whilst others bury theirs. Ownership of a certificate or a driving license does not remove the ability for its misuse.

[kev35]

I see what you are saying Charlie, but how many times do we hear or read headlines stating 'madman drives SUV through school classrooms killing twenty children and six staff'? the point being that, yes, cars do kill people but largely by accident rather than by intent. The same cannot be said of guns.

Edited to add: There is not an automatic right to own and drive a car. Here in the UK you are (supposed) to hold a provisional license whilst you learn, then to prove competence by testing and then insure and tax your car as well as ensuring it has a valid MOT.

regards,

kev35

[Moggy C]

In any case the amendment is never going to be rewritten so Americans are going to have to apply themselves to addressing the real problem.

Well, I suppose this is one way of addressing the problem

http://www.bulletblocker.com/bulletp...rotection.html

Moggy

[charliehunt]

I see what you are saying Charlie, but how many times do we hear or read headlines stating 'madman drives SUV through school classrooms killing twenty children and six staff'? the point being that, yes, cars do kill people but largely by accident rather than by intent. The same cannot be said of guns.

Edited to add: There is not an automatic right to own and drive a car. Here in the UK you are (supposed) to hold a provisional license whilst you learn, then to prove competence by testing and then insure and tax your car as well as ensuring it has a valid MOT.

regards,

kev35

In practice that is right but my point is more one of the principle. And with reference to your last comment that was why I wrote " Ownership of a certificate or a driving license does not remove the ability for its misuse."

[charliehunt]

Well, I suppose this is one way of addressing the problem

Moggy

Being realistic is usually the best way to address a problem. Hoping for the ideal solution never works, in my experience, laudable though that hope might be.

[Lincoln 7]

Well, I suppose this is one way of addressing the problem

http://www.bulletblocker.com/bulletp...rotection.html

Moggy

I can just imagine a child being in school all day wearing bullet proof Kevlar body protection.
However, the Companies advert is just, (To me) making money off the back of the recent incident, and in very poor taste, but that's just my opinion.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[Moggy C]

When I worked with the RUC I was told they lost more officers through back problems from prolonged wearing of ballistic vests than they did to the IRA.

(Though a better result for the individual officers - of course)

Moggy

[Creaking Door]

You can draw an analogy.....that by removing peoples' automatic right to own and drive a car you will enable some families to hold their children and loved ones close whilst others bury theirs. Ownership of a certificate or a driving license does not remove the ability for its misuse.

If you removed motor vehicles from society the US economy, or any similar economy, would collapse...

...the same is not true if you removed firearms.

[charliehunt]

It was simply an analogy to illustrate a point in response to Kev's comment earlier in our exchanges.

[Creaking Door]

Fair enough; I’ll read back through all the posts.

However the similarity between the numbers killed by guns and motor vehicles in the US are often used as a reason why guns should not be banned (or at least more restricted); motor vehicles kill as many so why aren’t they banned?

[charliehunt]

Yes, you are right - it is. I chose an unfortunately inappropriate analogy! My point was that simply "controlling" an activity does not necessarily make it safe. Banning an activity because of the actions of a minority would open the floodgates to ill considered legislation.

[kev35]

....... motor vehicles kill as many so why aren’t they banned?

Intent.

The primary purpose of a motor vehicle is the safe transportation of people and/or goods.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to deliver a destructive projectile onto a specific target.

Regards,

kev35

[Creaking Door]

Of course, but read back a few posts.....I wasn’t actually making that argument.

I suspect that the NRA would argue that the guns purpose is to ‘deliver a destructive projectile (from the hand of a good guy)...

...into (and out the other side of) a specific target (the bad guy)’.

[Moggy C]

Q: How many NRA members does it take to change a light bulb?

A: More guns

[charliehunt]

The primary purpose of a firearm is to deliver a destructive projectile onto a specific target........

Regards,

kev35

........in the course of legitimate and legal hunting, in the course of legitimate and legal recreational and sporting shooting and as a deterrent in the defence of one's person and/or property.