US Gun Control

[Beemer Dood]

The suggestion that people can defend their home with a weapon in it, is insane too. How can you persuade a burglar to stop what he's doing, whilst you pop upstairs to your drawer - or are people carrying guns at all times?

MANY break−ins that occur while people are home, occur while they're asleep. They are awakened by the sound of the break−in and arm themselves with guns kept near their beds. MANY break−ins that occur while people are home and awake, are initiated by someone pounding on the front door. There's plenty of time for those residents to arm themselves.

And homes with weapons in, kill kids

Oddly I've had weapons in my homes for about 60 years, not one child has been killed or even injured. Such gross generalizations as yours are just silly.

The USA (and us) went to war over a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people.

Fact is, i know that you don't want to be confused by them, is that the US, oh and let's not forget a coalition of about 60 other nations, went to war over a belief that a nation had weapons of mass destruction and had threatened to use them against the rest of the world to further their religious jihad.

But couldn't give a rats ass about their own communities.

We care about our communities quite a bit. That's why many states want to keep our honest people armed so they can defend themselves against criminals. FACT IS, firearms are used in the US, FAR MORE OFTEN to defend an honest person than they are used by criminals to kill.

I had to 'Unfriend' an American old colleague from Facebook this morning, because I couldn't listen to him debasing human life in a tyrannical witless rant and tirade of soundbites.... like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

Yeah, sometimes the truth hurts. Stick your head in the sand all you like. It doesn’t change reality.

[Beemer Dood]

The US Gun lobbyists argument suggests the more people with guns the better. They believe there will be a reduction in the number of 'wacko' type incidents because the 'wacko' can be 'taken out' easier. So, picture the scene:

Wacko turns up at College bent on destruction. Opens fire. Students reach for their gun and attempt to shoot the NUTTER WITH THE GUN.

What is wrong with this strategy - equally naive maybe ?

Most schools in the US have been declared as GFZ's (gun free zones) by the hoplophobes who think it increases safety in those zones. As common sense tells us, and as reality has proven over and over, the "nutters" don't obey such rules. They know that no one will be able to stop their insane shooting spree, because the people in those areas won't have guns.

IN EVERYCASE of those mass shootings, the ONLY THING that has stopped these "nutters" is an honest man with a gun.

There's quite a bit of evidence to show that these "nutters" purposefully look for these GFZ's to commit their acts of violence. One of them, who was captured alive, has even admitted that fact. With others, there's proof that they drove to an area they were looking to shoot up, saw that armed guards were present, and kept 'shopping' until they found one that was free of such guards.

[Beemer Dood]

Does anyone know what penalties if any are imposed on a legal gun holder in America who intervenes if a shooting starts (legal or otherwise)?

Yes. If he's acted appropriately, none.

Isn't one of the arguments for legal guns the right to defend, if more folks are carrying then any infringement shouldn't get far surely! Maybe the legal holders aren't really mentally prepared to end a life if the need arose - perhaps that should be part of the licensing process, that'd make folks think - I'm sure you'd have to shoot to kill someone like that fella in Norway who are set on a rampage.

Some are. Some are not. It's impossible to predict until the moment arrives.

[Beemer Dood]

No matter how hard I think about it I don't see any reason why someone should need to keep a firearm apart from maybe a shotgun in their home.

Self defense is a basic unalienable human right. The most efficient way to do that is with a gun. In the US firearms are used in self defense about 2 million times a year.

There's no need to ban firearms but the owners should be members of a club and the gun should be kept at the shooting club and only removed from there if the owner is entering a competition away from the club.

Such requirements mean that the government can prevent people from owning or having in their possession, the best tool for self defense, thereby denying them the right to defend themselves.

You can't stop a determined person from getting their hands on an illegal firearm but you can make it very difficult to do so.

In any large city you can find a place to buy a gun in less than 20 minutes with only an exchange of money for the gun. Intervention by the government only makes it more difficult FOR THE HONEST PERSON to get a gun.

I wind my elder brother up by telling him he's an idiot for having a couple of stickers on his car that refer to his shooting club and various other shooting bodies then leaving it parked outside his house. He might as well put a sign up saying he keeps guns in the house!

I agree that this 'advertising' is a bad idea.

[Beemer Dood]

What i dont understand is why USA citizens feel the need to own Military grade firearms designed for the sole purpose of ending human life just to go out into a field and shoot at targets. What are they afraid off ?

I'm guessing that you're talking about the AR-15 (few of which in reality are, as you claim "Military grade firearms." The semi-auto version of this is the most popular rifle in the country. That's because it's reasonably priced, relatively inexpensive to practice with, easy to shoot with a high degree of accuracy, ergonomic and delivers reasonable stopping power for the size of the package. Just as it is a good tool for war, it's an excellent tool for self defense.

"Go[ing] out into a field and shoot[ing] at targets" is not only a fun past−time but is practice for the act of self−defense.

Similarly there are those motorcyclists who purchase bikes that replicate racing bikes in every facet, except that they'll never see a race track.

[Beemer Dood]

I don't understand why Americans feel the need to hold a gun for self defense of themselves and thier families or homes.

Guns are used for self defense in the US about two million times a year. In most of those incidents, a shot is not fired.

[Beemer Dood]

It seems to me that whenever there's one of these mass shootings in the USA, the assassin is never dealt with by one of these 'brave' armed citizens.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. You are NOT entitled to you own facts.
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... source=GSL

The assassin usually turns his gun on himself, or is apprehended or (sometimes) shot by the police.

Most of these incidents occur in GFZ's (gun free zones), areas created by politicians and ignorant property owners who think that such areas make people safer. In reality, all it does is create a fishbowl of people who are much less likely to be armed, so that the killers don't have to worry about being stopped by a member of the crowd that he's about to assault.

Truth is, I suspect, that most of the gun carriers have no courage. Their pistols make them feel brave...until such time as they realise they might get shot. Then they just shit themselves and run like the rest of us would.

You might want to take a look at the link that I posted just above. And if you consider that most of these people arm themselves to protect themselves and/or their families, NOT the general public, your position becomes even more tenuous. It's not the job of anyone other than law enforcement, to go into such situations to stop these crazed killers. In a recent incident here, an armed citizen wanted to go stop the shooter but was prevented from doing so by others in the group he was with. After a few minutes of such an incident law enforcement will be enroute, and arriving on the scene. This become very dangerous for such a rescuer, as the responding officers may mistake him for the shooter. If an armed civilian decides to take action, good on him, but it's not his job or his responsibility.

[Beemer Dood]

It's true that a gun is an inaminate object and it's the person, not the weapon that is responsible for any acts of violence or murder. Therefore it makes sense to restrict access to those who have proved they can be trusted with gun ownership.

Self defense is a basic unalienable human right. Some folks seem to have forgotten this and instead have largely become a nation of sheep, relying on a nanny state government to protect them.

You wouldn't allow children run around with loaded guns so why allow Americans to do so?

You conveniently overlook that just a few hundred years ago, these "American children ... with loaded guns"" kicked the butts of their oppressors, and tossed them out. Soon thereafter they decided that having individuals own guns for self protection and defense of the country was second only to freedom of speech, religion, and the press, in importance.

[Crossrutted]

It's true that a gun is an inaminate object and it's the person, not the weapon that is responsible for any acts of violence or murder. Therefore it makes sense to restrict access to those who have proved they can be trusted with gun ownership.

Self defense is a basic unalienable human right. Some folks seem to have forgotten this and instead have largely become a nation of sheep, relying on a nanny state government to protect them.

You wouldn't allow children run around with loaded guns so why allow Americans to do so?

You conveniently overlook that just a few hundred years ago, these "American children ... with loaded guns"" kicked the butts of their oppressors, and tossed them out. Soon thereafter they decided that having individuals own guns for self protection and defense of the country was second only to freedom of speech, religion, and the press, in importance.

Took about 1 millisecond to realise you, Mr Dood, are an American.

You really are wasting your time attempting to justify your country's outdated laws regarding weapons.

Arming idiots really isn't a good or virtuous policy, it's just dumb.

[misterlaffer]

The US Gun lobbyists argument suggests the more people with guns the better. They believe there will be a reduction in the number of 'wacko' type incidents because the 'wacko' can be 'taken out' easier. So, picture the scene:

Wacko turns up at College bent on destruction. Opens fire. Students reach for their gun and attempt to shoot the NUTTER WITH THE GUN.

What is wrong with this strategy - equally naive maybe ?

Most schools in the US have been declared as GFZ's (gun free zones) by the hoplophobes who think it increases safety in those zones. As common sense tells us, and as reality has proven over and over, the "nutters" don't obey such rules. They know that no one will be able to stop their insane shooting spree, because the people in those areas won't have guns.

IN EVERYCASE of those mass shootings, the ONLY THING that has stopped these "nutters" is an honest man with a gun.

There's quite a bit of evidence to show that these "nutters" purposefully look for these GFZ's to commit their acts of violence. One of them, who was captured alive, has even admitted that fact. With others, there's proof that they drove to an area they were looking to shoot up, saw that armed guards were present, and kept 'shopping' until they found one that was free of such guards.

Hmmm, I still don't buy this. A few years ago we had a horrific incident in the UK at a Primary School caused by a Nutter with a gun that led to the tightening of Gun laws UK wide. Although the solution may be questionable in it's effectiveness to avoid a repeat of some such incident again I really doubt the solution would have been to send 7 year-olds off to school with a Gun just in-case this may happen again, or even to encourage Miss Jean Brodie to arm herself with a 9mm in her handbag ditto the headmaster, caretaker et-al becausae it's their right to defend theirself. I would never feel comfortable with my child at a school where this policy was in place simply because the Nutter in question may just be a disgruntled teacher or pupil who decided to use his/her right to bear arms against my child which given such a policy based on the laws of probability would be the most likely case. The simple solution would be to ban the GUN in society in the first place, and from there I prefer my child to take his/her chances. I honestly believe lifting the GFZ would solve nothing, I cannot see how it would reduce risk at all.