Hope this doesn't get locked. IF STRICT GUN LAWS WORKED.

[ws23rt]

^^^ to Bull and Skip

How sad and ironic it is that the war we seem to fight is against ourselves and from within while the enemy laughs.  Just who are the foolish here??

[Mike DC]

I'm wondering how long it will take for being at war to sink in as what we are dying from.---Is it a percentage of the living being killed??

It would help sink in if ISIS eventually starts killing more Americans than bee stings.  

On the other hand a scared public and a perpetual state of war is extremely useful for those in power.  



     

The rhetoric keeps getting hotter and hotter and with that the anger level increases. At first the anti-gunners were asking nicely and pro-gunners politely gave in to a few concessions. Since then the rhetoric has gotten more and more aggressive. Today, they are demanding (some even call for a total ban and elimination) and the pro-gunners are in full-on F-you mode.

The problem here is someone has to blink. Most people I know (myself included) are strong proponents of the 2A and are to the point we will not give up anymore rights without a huge fight. We feel we've given enough, too much in many cases, and have seen no positive results. So now what? If the anti-gunners go all in and say "That's it, turn them in or else!" it's going to be war. As I understand it most sheriffs will refuse to enforce more federal gun laws so they will side with pro-gunners and I imagine the lion's share of the military would refuse to start kicking down American doors to usurp the US Constitution.

Here's two ironies I can see happening if the anti-gunners don't drop it: 1. The fight over the 2A may end up being the very reason the 2A was created. 2. Those who want to ban guns will have to kill more Americans than have ever been killed to realize their goal of banning them.

Who needs to kill anyone or get rid of guns, just to ban them?

The govt has banned drugs too.  The bans don't get rid of something, they just provide a rationale to selectively oppress certain people more than others.  

A gun ban would reduce the number of guns in circulation but it would be decades before they became uncommon.  



 

You have no idea how funny (or scary in some cases) this sounds from over here in the UK. We banned hand guns...must be thirty years ago, like most of the civilised world. It's not impossible to own one but so difficult to get a license and with such strict controls they are all but banned. Us ex gun owners were not happy as you can imagine.....but we got over it and life went on. Oh and guess what gun crime and shootings went down.....not surprising really with no legally held guns around to be stolen by the villains....ok we are an island so it is more difficult to get them here than just driving over the border. And in reply to the person who said about knife crime in the UK because we have no guns....well firstly or knife crime is also proportionally lower than yours so that argument hold little water...and secondly a knife can't hurt you over arms length away so I know what I would rather take my chances with. Of course we still have gun toting criminals but it is so rare that a single shooting makes the news for days. Our police don't even feel the need to carry guns as the chances are they will never see an armed villain in their career....They vote on it once in a while and always say no.....if they don't carry then the criminals feel less need to. It seems like a mass shooting over there barely makes the headlines over there any more. You just seem to accept it as the price you pay for your right to bare arms.....A right you have under your precious constitution.....but a right that was actually an amendment to the original constitution in the first...so you could change it back again if you wanted....but you won't. And it's your country so if it's the democratic decision of the majority to have guns then so be it. Just don't complain when it's your son or daughter next time. Just the view point from over the pond...and one I don't expect to find much support..so go easy on me!

The population of the USA is five times that of the UK.  Counting violence in the USA is like counting 2/3rds of the entire EU as one country.  Factor that into the perceptions about how violent it is here.  

As for police, there is no effing way the US cops will quit carrying guns just because the US public has given up guns.  Not gonna happen in my lifetime.  The US authorities do not voluntarily give up power in any way, shape, or form.  If the US had 1 illegal gun out there per 10,000 citizens, the US authorities would call that justification enough to stay armed.  

[bull]

Who needs to kill anyone or get rid of guns, just to ban them?

The govt has banned drugs too.  The bans don't get rid of something, they just provide a rationale to selectively oppress certain people more than others.  

A gun ban would reduce the number of guns in circulation but it would be decades before they became uncommon.  There is no effing way the USA cops will quit carrying guns just because the USA public has given up the 2A.  Not gonna happen in my lifetime.  The US authorities do not voluntarily give up power in any way, shape, or form.  

Sure, they can ban them on paper but unless they plan to actually take them their ban is not a ban, so at some point they've got to apply some teeth to their ban if they plan on getting rid of them. "Teeth" in this case would pretty much have to be a door-to-door raid of every suspected gun owner unwilling to comply which would undoubtedly involve shots being fired as well as a subsequent organization of gun owners to some extent once word got around. There was a microcosm of this situation in Connecticut and NY when they commanded citizens to register their "assault weapons." NY refuses to publish its results but Connecticut estimates the compliance rate at around 15%. That's means 85% of Connecticut's gun owners gave their state legislature the middle finger. Now what? To truly enforce a ban there has to be strong arm enforcement. Add yet many in law-enforcement do not support gun bans the way they did a ban on drugs so where does that leave them? They either drop it or get violent. The war on drugs is an example but it's not a great one because there's a big difference between trying to ban drugs and trying to effectively eliminate 1/10 of the Bill of Rights. Genuinely trying to eliminate the 2A is tantamount to a declaration of war. I honestly don't think that's overstating it.

[Mike DC]

        
That's why they wouldn't technically repeal the 2nd amendment. They would just ignore it.  


They would write a series of smaller laws that restrict gun ownership until it's functionally illegal.  Then the Supreme Court just has to avoid hearing any case that might raise the issue from then on.  

Problem solved.  No repealed 2nd Amendment, just functionally banned guns.

[HeavyFuel]

You have no idea how funny (or scary in some cases) this sounds from over here in the UK. We banned hand guns...must be thirty years ago, like most of the civilised world. It's not impossible to own one but so difficult to get a license and with such strict controls they are all but banned. Us ex gun owners were not happy as you can imagine.....but we got over it and life went on. Oh and guess what gun crime and shootings went down.....not surprising really with no legally held guns around to be stolen by the villains....ok we are an island so it is more difficult to get them here than just driving over the border. And in reply to the person who said about knife crime in the UK because we have no guns....well firstly or knife crime is also proportionally lower than yours so that argument hold little water...and secondly a knife can't hurt you over arms length away so I know what I would rather take my chances with. Of course we still have gun toting criminals but it is so rare that a single shooting makes the news for days. Our police don't even feel the need to carry guns as the chances are they will never see an armed villain in their career....They vote on it once in a while and always say no.....if they don't carry then the criminals feel less need to. It seems like a mass shooting over there barely makes the headlines over there any more. You just seem to accept it as the price you pay for your right to bare arms..... A right you have under your precious constitution.....but a right that was actually an amendment to the original constitution in the first...so you could change it back again if you wanted....but you won't. And it's your country so if it's the democratic decision of the majority to have guns then so be it. Just don't complain when it's your son or daughter next time. Just the view point from over the pond...and one I don't expect to find much support..so go easy on me!

Kinda on thin ice there, Alfy, with some of those remarks.    


I'll be civil and leave it at that.  

[skip68]

We banned hand guns...must be thirty years ago, like most of the civilised world.

.A right you have under your precious constitution.....

Just a bit on the edge.    We are civilized.
I don't pee in the sink anymore,
If food falls on the floor I go by the 1 second rule not 3.
I hardly ever beat my wife and I quit kissing my sister years ago.   
I wipe front to back,  speak clearly and still have most my own teeth. 
Just sayin.   

[bull]

       
That's why they wouldn't technically repeal the 2nd amendment. They would just ignore it.  


They would write a series of smaller laws that restrict gun ownership until it's functionally illegal.  Then the Supreme Court just has to avoid hearing any case that might raise the issue from then on.  

Problem solved.  No repealed 2nd Amendment, just functionally banned guns.

Which would probably be fine if it weren't for the extreme rhetoric. There have always been calls for total bans but it hasn't been a mainstream thought process until recently. Now you see senators talking about it, editorial boards talking about it and organizations dedicated to doing it. I doubt they'll get too far, perhaps no farther than PETA seems to get with its extremist agenda, but it's enough to put people on edge. Especially when the support for the idea comes from as high as the president who frequently praises very strict gun controls on island continents 1/3 the size of the American continent with 1/3 the population.

[el dub]

 Your country has been around many more centuries than America.  England was a gradual changing of territories, boundaries, monarchs and leaders. The island has been invaded numerous times in it's early history that it's almost impossible to pinpoint the exact moment when England became the England we all know about. America has an Independence Day that was created through the use of guns. Against England. America had Indians to kill. With guns. We opened up the wild west with guns. We hunted and provided for our families with guns and we still do. Those are a few of the reasons we have guns. And everyone knows when you have a real cool toy(gun) your not giving it up.
    But America is only two hundred plus years old. Who knows how we will be when we have been around as long as England has. But I'll say this, our constitution will probably be the same as it ever was. And a piece of advice. If you ever let a man with a knife get within six to ten feet of you, and your holding a gun. You will die. Your reflexes wont compute fast enough

[skip68]

21 feet.   

[alfaitalia]

We banned hand guns...must be thirty years ago, like most of the civilised world.

.A right you have under your precious constitution.....

Just a bit on the edge.    We are civilized.
I don't pee in the sink anymore,
If food falls on the floor I go by the 1 second rule not 3.
I hardly ever beat my wife and I quit kissing my sister years ago.  
I wipe front to back,  speak clearly and still have most my own teeth.  
Just sayin.    

I was in no way saying that you were not civilised.....I did not mean it to sound like I was saying that. I was trying to say that you ARE civilised and could join most of the rest of the civilised nations by not having guns. I was playing for a reaction with a lot of my post...and got it. Guns are so entrenched in your culture...both historically and financially I cannot every see you guys banning them in my lifetime. So that should make most of you happy by the sound of it. .....And as for a guy with a knife 20 feet away being able to get me with it( I guess you are saying by throwing it?) faster than I could pull a trigger and him hit me somewhere fatal?.....I think not. As the old saying says...you don't take a knife to a gunfight!

By the way carrying knives in this country is also illegal and the police are clamping down hard so it would not surprise me if we see a reduction in knife crime soon too...although we are already below the rate of many mainland European countries.

Anyway I will stay out of this one and leave you boys to your discussions...It's your country.

[skip68]

No need to stay out alfaitalia.   You have a different perspective and way of life than ours and it's good to hear others.   

[alfaitalia]

Cool and thanks....call me Dean! ....but I will stay out as its really nothing to do with me!! Its beer o'clock here now (9.15pm if you care) so Cheers!

[John_Kunkel]

You have no idea how funny (or scary in some cases) this sounds from over here in the UK. We banned hand guns...must be thirty years ago, like most of the civilised world.

And our founding fathers learned lessons from kicking your collective asses out...the lesson that an armed country is less likely to be over run by foreign militaries (refugees are another matter). If your Magna Carte had included a guarantee to keep citizens armed..........

[Troy]

The thing about other countries... it seems like none of them had the "right" to own a firearm before they banned them so it was really pretty easy. Much harder here since you'd have to change a law - and not a trivial one at that! But by the same token, people on either coast and (especially) people in big cities are clueless about the rest of the country. I literally can shoot a high powered rifle over a mile and not worry about hitting anything (even the target ba-da-bum!). So why treat me the same as a guy living in a 40 story high rise? (Same argument applies to cars and cost of living by the way.) The fact is that "gun violence" is practically non-existent in rural areas - and that's where most of the guns can be found. This is a GIGANTIC country with relative few highly populated cites. So when you see these stories about "the average gun owner in the US has 7 guns" well, someone like my cousin has at least one deer rifle, a "sidearm" for snakes and such, a couple shotguns for birds, squirrels, and deer, a small bore varmint/pest rifle, and maybe a hand gun or two inside the house. This is the same guy who came in to find a bobcat in his living room once when he was renovating the floor. Not everyone even "gets" that lifestyle. Those types of people (from what I understand) are still allowed to own certain firearms even in places like the UK and Australia. So if all guns are bad why aren't they out going on shooting rampages? Why aren't the cops afraid? Maybe because they know it's the person who is dangerous and not the weapon?

There are ways to change laws without trampling on the rights of half the country. But that doesn't win votes or make your rabid constituents (or haters) happy. The problem is the lack of compromise and rational thought/debate in people these days. It seems no amount of "truth" can change a person's point of view so why bother? The left wants to "understand" why criminals do horrible things but flat out dismiss any pro-gun views. The right wants total freedom but covers their ears when mental health enters the picture. And no one really wants "profiling". Maybe you do, but probably not once you really sit down and think it through. Until people begin to face the real issues head on and have a rational, factual debate then this will continue to be a giant mess where no one is happy. But that's a politician's dream!

Troy

[skip68]

I don't ever see an end to the gun debate.  Those that want to keep them will ALWAYS want to keep them.  Those that want to ban them will ALWAYS want to ban them.  You hear some say after a massacre that it could've been prevented if there were stronger gun laws.  Then you hear others say if people were armed it would've been a different outcome.     
I say they are equally right and equally wrong.   
The lack of common sense is the biggest problem I think when it comes from fanatics on both sides. 

[Brass]

Australia revised their laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences

A comedian's point of view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

I'll hasten to add that I am a gun owner who is in favor of reasonable legislation or at least doing a better job enforcing the laws we already have.  While the effectiveness of new gun laws may be debatable, and even though I am not in favor of arbitrary, feel-good laws that are otherwise futile, I don't think the only result of any new restrictions will be that only criminals will have all the guns.  It's not as simple as that.  But maybe we should try something.  Because one thing seems pretty certain; doing nothing also does nothing to help curb gun violence.    

[Mike DC]

  
To any overseas readers lurking here trying to understand the USA -

Troy's point about the the rural vs urban differences is crucial.  There is a total difference in lifestyle between the compact eastern cities and the rural countryside.  We've got people in New York & San Francisco who presume to know (or don't care) what kind of firearm policies make sense in rural Wyoming or North Dakota.  Etc.   


Also, just the raw size of the USA.  The flying distance between New York & Los Angeles is literally farther than going from London to Baghdad.  A big portion of our population lives in rural or semi-rural areas.

 

[skip68]

Spot on.   I grew up rural on a ranch.  Our closest neighbor was almost a mile away.  We had over 3 miles of dirt road just getting there.  We had coyote problems often and occasional mountain lion.  Guns are considered tools on a ranch.   I never thought much about them and had access to them when I was young.  Not all predators are human.  Wild animals are a concern when you live in the country and sometimes you need to thin the herd so to speak.   

[polywideblock]

try walking from Sydney to Melbourne  or Perth    , Australia is just as vast    maybe more so ( less towns/city's )

we carved out our existence less than 200 years ago, fed ourselves etc etc  (with guns ) aussies were renowned for their bushcraft /survival skills  

then john Howard happened  (1997)       now we have none     a nation of victims waiting for something to happen

worries the crap out of me that we have a hugely overpopulated ( 255,708,785) Islamist SMALL island  just north of us  and we are just sitting here waiting for the day they decide that we have "to much spare land " and an unacceptable religious mix  

just my   worth( from someone overseas that has seen gun control in action) on the thought of disarming the public

[skip68]

We will come and help you guys poly.    
And yes, you guys had to tame your country like us with guns.  I think you have more deadly animals there than us.  We used to but we killed them all mostly.    
Though now we are bringing wolves back.   
I think that's a bad idea.  I consider coyotes and wolves land sharks.   

[stripedelete]

Does the 2nd Amendment say anything about the right to bare ammo?

That's how they're going to get us.

[alfaitalia]

try walking from Sydney to Melbourne  or Perth    , Australia is just as vast    maybe more so ( less towns/city's )

we carved out our existence less than 200 years ago, fed ourselves etc etc  (with guns ) aussies were renowned for their bushcraft /survival skills  

then john Howard happened  (1997)       now we have none     a nation of victims waiting for something to happen

worries the crap out of me that we have a hugely overpopulated ( 255,708,785) Islamist SMALL island  just north of us  and we are just sitting here waiting for the day they decide that we have "to much spare land " and an unacceptable religious mix  

just my   worth( from someone overseas that has seen gun control in action) on the thought of disarming the public

LOL! Well at least you are not alarmist at all! I'm not a Muslim (I'm an atheist...which is fine but the holidays are crap!!! LOL)  but you forget that 99.9% of them are decent hard working peace loving people (as the Koran dictates). Saying stuff like that just alienates the middle ground folk amongst who may consider the extremists have appoint but are at the moment peaceful and helps nothing. We had quite a few Germans trying to invade in the 40s...you might have read about. The public did not have guns then either but we did not need to defend ourselves individually...that's what we have an army for....I think you have one for that job too. Lets be honest....realistically they wont be invading you!

[polywideblock]

  I hope they don't         but to quote a mopar saying "never say never "

didn't your own Neville Chamberlain famously say "  peace for  our time "    didn't that work out great  for everyone involved   

[rt_bigblock]

Im' in Australia ,I lost my guns with the so called , buy back you all saw
,it was crap we only handed the guns we wanted to make money , on  I, made a heaps  of money , big time .
I was a professional sporting shooter with a license, to carry it made no difference here guns are just lot more dearer to buy the gun crime is still scary and at least 6 police dead ..in the last 2 years sad world ....

[sunfire69]

Brass had the right idea....FUND the laws we have.....if the background check program was fully funded and intergrated like it was supposed to be the South Carolina shooter would not have gotten his gun ( not legally anyway).....If mental health program were fully funded the Colorado theater shooter would not been able to buy his guns...heii even his doctor was afraid of him but she didn't turn him in even though she felt he was a danger to himself and the community ....Hold our judges and Doctors accountable...if a Virginia judge had done his job and remanded the Virginia tech shooter to court ordered mental health care he would not have been able to buy his guns.....if our immigration and border patrol was funded and staffed and the laws strengthened this most recent radical would not even be in this country...Just funding what we have would not cause the Pro gun groups to resist or shouldn't...and it would appease the anti-gun crowed.....both sides of the house could support it.....but anti-gun groups demand "new" more stricter laws when we don't even fund or enforce the ones we have.....and the last two radicals did NOT get their AR-15s legally...they were bought by a "friend" and given to them that's called a straw purchase and is illegal but it kept them off the radar....