Politics guns in america

[mexico city]

ok, in the last 72 hours
we had a judge and three others killed
in atlanta
and 8 killed and several others wounded in
wisconsin...
what's up with this country?
too many guns?
too easy to get?

solutions?

mc

 

[<Shotgun>]

Guns should be banned for the public to buy, its way to easy to get a gun over there

After everything that has happened in the past its silly that the goverment still hasnt banned them, atleast over here the risk of being shot isnt as much as America

 

[Jamison]

They are way too easy to get, and I don't see the point of them, if we ban them all together.

Sadly that will never happen, so we need to make laws stricter and make them harder to get.

 

[xdancer]

i don't think we can or really should ban all guns. the fact is, in America, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and barring another constitutional amendment invalidating the second amendment, that's the way it's going to stay. hunting rifles are fine by me. i don't like hunting, but if it floats your boat, whatever. however, handguns and assault weapons are only used for killing people. it should be very hard to get handguns and impossible to get assault weapons.

 

[Hibou]

i don't think we can or really should ban all guns.  the fact is, in America, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and barring another constitutional amendment invalidating the second amendment, that's the way it's going to stay.  hunting rifles are fine by me.  i don't like hunting, but if it floats your boat, whatever.  however, handguns and assault weapons are only used for killing people.  it should be very hard to get handguns and impossible to get assault weapons.

[post="1256597"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Excellent point. We cannot, consitutionally, stop all sales of guns. The point of that clause is to give the people the feeling that they can overthrow the government if need be (seriously, do you think the American people would be able to overthrow the government?!?). But, along with clause came that people can buy guns for anything basically....

I think that right now, gun control is not working very well...And remember, if there was a ban...would police officers be able to use guns? And also, people will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun. I mean, if children can just buy one on the streets, that's a problem. It's the same way with many things....guns, drugs, etc. They are easier to obtain now, even though now they are putting more effort into stopping that. Sort of ironic -_-

 

[mexico city]

i think the assault weapon and hand gun idea is a great one
start there
and make the guns
harder to get
especially for under 21
and at gun shows

and any checking into psych testing
would be wise...
do we ever check if someone's been in a mental hospital for example?

and in the atlanta case
more and bigger guards around the accused
would have been very smart

mc

 

[Jamison]

From the information I looked up, there is a 5 day waiting period before purchasing your handgun (ideally) where they do a background check. This doesnn't seem to include a psych evaluation or anything of the sort...kinda scary.

 

[noggi16]

Excellent point. We cannot, consitutionally, stop all sales of guns. The point of that clause is to give the people the feeling that they can overthrow the government if need be (seriously, do you think the American people would be able to overthrow the government?!?). But, along with clause came that people can buy guns for anything basically....

I was always under the impression the second ammendment was because at the time the constitution was written you probably needed to bear arms (frontier and all that stuff) but i've never studied it and I'm not american so you may be right.


I don't agree that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun if you've been in a mental hosptial because lots of people have some form of mental illness, it doesn't mean their all dangerous.

I also don't think more guards would have helped, I've been in court when defendants have tried to jump the dock and its very scary but if their determined to do it they will.

However, while I agree in princple with the right to bear arms, I think there should be some severe restrictions on who can own a gun. In Britain its very difficult to get a gun although not as difficult as it used to be despite legislation after Dunblane (16 kids and a teacher were shot in a primary school) and our gun crime is no where near as bad as it is in America. If you want to own a gun for shotting, you have to have licences and locked rooms. Lots of restirction.

I don't even think restriction is incompatiable with the constitution. If you gave that the the House of Lords they'd come up with a way to make it fit. No one is saying you can't have a gun, but you have to prove you want it for a good reason, and you aren't likely to just randomly shoot someone.

 

[mexico city]

do note, however that the lone guard
who escorted the accused into the atlanta
courtroom was 5 foot 6 and weighed 110 pounds

mc

 

[Jamison]

do note, however that the lone guard
who escorted the accused into the atlanta
courtroom was 5 foot 6 and weighed 110 pounds

mc

[post="1256970"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Exactly. And the guy she was escorting was 6'1 and 210 pounds. I'm sorry but it would've been a lot harder to overpower a guard who was 6'5 and 300 pounds.

 

[xdancer]

I was always under the impression the second ammendment was because at the time the constitution was written you probably needed to bear arms (frontier and all that stuff) but i've never studied it and I'm not american so you may be right.
I don't agree that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun if you've been in a mental hosptial because lots of people have some form of mental illness, it doesn't mean their all dangerous.

[post="1256803"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

the second amendment actually reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." so, really, in my opinion, it's obselete. a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. we have an army, and armed rebellion is not an acceptable form of protest. however, i'm not a constitutional scholar, and most people who are disagree with me.

 

[Natalia]

To quote The West Wing.

If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany,
Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you’ve got a population roughly the size
of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do you think it’s
because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it’s because those guys have
gun control laws?

And, further,

The constitution says a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state...
the government shall not infringe. The words regulated and militia are in the first sentence.

 

[xdancer]

while we're quoting the West Wing...

This is our 5th press briefing since midnight. Obviously, there's one story that going dominating news around the world for the next few days, and it would be easy to think that President Bartlet, Joshua Lyman, and Stephanie Abbott were the only victims of a gun crime last night. They weren't. Mark Davis and Sheila Evans of Philadelphia were killed by a gun last night. He was a Biology Teacher and she was a Nursing student. Tina Bishop and Linda Larkin were killed with a gun last night. They were 12. There were 36 homicides last night. 480 sexual assaults, 3,411 robberies, 3,685 aggravated assaults, all at
gunpoint. And if anyone thinks those crimes could have been prevented if the victims themselves had been carrying guns, I'd only remind you that the President of the United States himself was shot last night while surrounded by the best trained armed guards in the history of the world.

obviously, that's not real, but in the last fifty years, Kennedy was shot and there was anattempted assination of Reagan.

 

[AliasHombre]

If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun they will obtain a gun by any means possible, legal or illegal.

 

[Lemon-Krumpitz]

I dont see why having guns is necessary anymore. Yeah, people say that they have a right to protect their family, but if someone came into your house and tryed to rob you, would you REALLY shoot them?

 

[AliasHombre]

Mabye thats why people dont usually rob houses with people in them.

 

[Jamison]

If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun they will obtain a gun by any means possible, legal or illegal.

[post="1257449"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

True, but with tougher gun laws it would be a lot harder to get one, and I know crime would drop.

 

[mexico city]

the second amendment actually reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  so, really, in my opinion, it's obselete.  a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state.  we have an army, and armed rebellion is not an acceptable form of protest.  however, i'm not a constitutional scholar, and most people who are disagree with me.

[post="1257238"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

my opinion is that the "a well-regulated militia" phrase renders the whole clause an anachronism
because the premise is ludicrously out of date, organizations like the nra are reduced, in the light of day, to being a bunch of radical fanatics

i find all firearms vile and wretched
(in fact i find killing as an instrument of national policy something that should have ceased around the time of the invention of gunpowder)
it is my understanding that in england and japan, not even the police carry guns

i believe the interpretation of the second amendment is reduced to a litmus test of one's ideology: like guns and you're a hunter or a sportsman, and you rely on the second amendment

if you abhore the level of gun violence and the availability of weapons, and you point to the fact that the whole premise upon which the amendment is based is archaic, and, sadly, fertile ground for the abominable level of violent crime in this country

save some land for me, prince edward island, i'll be there soon...

 

[Natalia]

If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun they will obtain a gun by any means possible, legal or illegal.

[post="1257449"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Uh, the point is, America's crime rate is unbelievably appalling. Sure, guns are available illegally in other countries too, but how to explain America's 32 000 gun deaths, as opposed to the 112 for Australia, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark combined?

The difference? Your gun laws. There's no excusing it. I can't believe anybody would value human life so little that they could excuse it. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

And surely saving those 32 000 lives justifies upsetting a few gun-wielding Americans who claim it is their constitutional right.

 

[Jamison]

Uh, the point is, America's crime rate is unbelievably appalling. Sure, guns are available illegally in other countries too, but how to explain America's 32 000 gun deaths, as opposed to the 112 for Australia, Great Britain, France, Germany,
Japan, Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark combined?

The difference? Your gun laws. There's no excusing it. I can't believe anybody would value human life so little that they could excuse it. :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

And surely saving those 32 000 lives justifies upsetting a few gun-wielding Americans who claim it is their constitutional right.

[post="1257640"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Right on!