"Right to bear arms" should mean ...

by Simon 616 Replies latest members politics

• 

  Deputy Dog

  Besty

  We have had 3 gun massacres here in the UK in the last 60 years - 1987, 1996 and 2011 - in each case the assailant topped themselves before enforcement could capture or kill them.

  That’s interesting. You’ve had all 3 within the last 25 years. How did a country where guns are banned such as the UK have any shootings at all? Did the strict gun laws protect those victims? Did you ever stop to think about what would have happened if a prudent person at one of those schools had gun?

  I don’t see the point on commenting about the other questions you pose, because I know that if I put my gun down the bad guys aren’t going away. I just don’t think we are comparing apples to apples. Just as when I look at the numbers that say that if I live in the UK I’m much more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than here in the US (some say as much as 4 times more likely). As one who knows how to use MY gun, that’s the reality!

  I grew up with and around guns. Over the last 20 years I've worked in dozens (probably getting close to 100) of shooting investigations, involving everything from property damage to murder.

  As an american, I'm OK with "Live free or die.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Simon

  How many of these mass spree killings are stopped by law enforcement? How much law enforcement effort and cost is going into this? What else could they be doing if they weren't spending their time investigating potential killings like this?

  You mean like in the UK and Canada where violent crime is much higher than the US?
• 

  144001

  <<<If the guns were not legal to own then she wouldn't have had them and he couldn't have used them. Pretty simple really.>>>>

  Yes, but because of the existence of the 2nd Amendment in this country, as well as the existence of a very powerful pro-gun rights voting block and very powerful special interests, guns will never be illegal in this country. So this sort of reasoning, while certainly valid, is completely unrealistic when applied to the situation in the USA.

  Proposals have been discussed regarding limiting magazine size. This is not a bad idea, but even that wouldn't necessarily have limited the casualties involved. Tricks folks use to get past the magazine capacity limitations are many, including, for example, taping magazines together, in opposite directions, with duct tape. When one magazine is emptied. the shooter simply ejects the spent magazine and flips it over before plugging it back in again. The time involved is a split second and not likely enough for someone to subdue the gunman. Others include construction of their own magazines, which is actually not that difficult to do, given the internet and the widely-available information regarding this subject.

  <<<<Following your argument it wouldn't make any difference to the rate of gun-deaths if you hung machine guns off every lampost which would be a rediculous claim.>>>>>

  False analogy. My argument is that gun control is not going to prevent these tragedies unless we ban guns altogether. And that's not going to happen, given the 2nd Amendment and the strong support for gun rights in this country.
• 

  moshe

  When you least expect it, you might need a gun to protect yourself. Just like having emergency supplies of food at home, it's too late to get them when the crisis hits.
• 

  RubaDub

  I guess the pro-gun lobby could argue that if every school-aged child carred a gun, there wouldn't be an issue with bullying in schools. Just go out on the playground and settle the issue there.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  144001

  Rubadub,

  Politicians in Tennessee are already calling for the arming of school teachers . . . an idea that is about as stupid as arming all school children.
• 

  RubaDub

  Politicians in Tennessee are already calling for the arming of school teachers . . . an idea that is about as stupid as arming all school children.

  144001 ...

  Look at the positive side, arming both teachers and students in the school would help to cut down on over-crowded classrooms.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  Finkelstein

  You mean like in the UK and Canada where violent crime is much higher than the US?

  Boy there's a bullshit statement, have any valid statistics to support that claim ?

  Just because the 2nd amendment is there doesn't mean that laws can not be added from that amendment.

  Still allowing the sale of hunting rifles/guns would still uphold the law of the land.

  If any of you pro gunners get shot at in a public place and you know your probably going to die, please make your last words ....

  " God Bless America "
• 

  besty

  @Deputy Dog

  Besty "We have had 3 gun massacres here in the UK in the last 60 years - 1987, 1996 and 2011 - in each case the assailant topped themselves before enforcement could capture or kill them."

  Deputy Dog - That’s interesting. You’ve had all 3 within the last 25 years. How did a country where guns are banned such as the UK have any shootings at all? Did the strict gun laws protect those victims? Did you ever stop to think about what would have happened if a prudent person at one of those schools had gun

  3 in 24 years - it is interesting, compared to the 3 the USA has had in the last 24 months.

  The reason I mentioned that the perp offed themselves was as a counter-argument to your statement that " At some point actual deadly force will be needed for enforcement" - events don't work like that in these mass killings - these perps are killing themselves or surrendering without a fight when they are done killing - eg Tucson and Norway.

  In any case mass killings are the outlier - most gun crime is handgun homicide 1 victim at a time.

  Guns are not banned in the UK - the 3 mentioned mass killings all were carried out with legally held weapons. Albeit the laws were tightened further after events 1 and 2. Only event 1 was at a school - the other 2 were more geographically widespread.

  The strict guns laws clearly did not protect these victims - that much we have in common - a victim is a victim. But do you see how other potential victims may have been protected by our gun laws, given the UK has had 3 massacres in 24 years, and the USA have had 3 in 24 months. As mentioned handgun homicide of 1 person is the major problem, where the US per capita rate exceeds the UK equivalent by 74x.

  I hate the idea of a prudent person at school with a gun - thats not an environment I would choose for my children. (specially an American person with 2x more accidental deaths with guns than in the UK :-))

  I don't mind if you don't feel the need to address my other questions - just for the record they are:

  what are your thoughts on protecting the school bus?

  Any comments on the correlation between gun proliferation and per capita firearm homicides?

  How about the accidental death rate from fireams being 2x that of the UK - any comments on that?

  You take your chances with a gun for personal protection - I have crowd-sourced my safety at a society level - the statistics are on my side.
• 

  jgnat

  World homicide rate:

  

  The lighter the color, the better the rate.