I think it would just result in more of these sprees tbh. When the next madman starts gunning people down who do you rely on for protection? As I've said many times before on this subject, I don't think a British solution would work the same in America because the two cultures are simply too different. The minute guns were outlawed and someone later died in a gun crime, the government would be crucified as the accusation would be that by denying that person the right to carry a weapon, they had put them at risk of others carrying. We don't really have a culture of carrying weapons for our protection in this country, but they do and that's what I don't think British type legislation would work there.
the police .
whenever there's been one of these killing sprees has the gunman ever been stopped by another citizen with a gun ?
It would be the best thing for the country, but it won't happen because the rednecks and their friends in the NRA won't let it, they want to believe that they have the right to stock pile military grade assault weapons in their bedrooms and basements, because they do not understand the Declaration of Independence and the constitution they cling to so desperately.
The right to bear arms was meant to allow the populace to defend themselves by raising a militia at a time when there was no standing army to defend America
The lack of meaningful gun control is holding the country back, as Obama said, no other civilised nation had mass shooting at the same regularity as America
The ability to shoot and kill anyone who disagrees with you prevents mature discussion of social problems, it is a nation of angry violent children prone to lethal violent outbursts like we have seen time and time again.
Fair enough the name of this website looks biased but the facts do check out and you can verify it.
In each of these cases, any gun ban would effectively be telling these people that they don't deserve to be able to protect themselves or others from harm and should simply just take a beating or even be killed waiting for armed police to arrive. What right do we have to take away the right of self defence from those people? In America the carrying of weapons for protection is as deeply embedded in their culture as the Queen is in ours. British-type legislating against them would just mean that fewer law abiding people carry and all the criminals continue to carry, and it's no surprise what that would obviously lead to. Also the American government would probably be held criminally liable for every future murder where a weapon could have prevented the killing, but they forced people to be under equipped to protect themselves. Their finances aren't exactly great at the moment, that would cripple them.
There are plenty of occasions where an armed citizen has used their weapon to either protect themselves from attack, I've given several examples. A ban is like telling the people whose lives were saved that they don't have the right to protect themselves or others. And at the end of the day, for what? There is no proof that a gun ban would cause any less loss of life to gun crime than current laws.
Nothing will ever be done - the NRA is far too powerful.
We may as well start the clock ticking for the next massacre because within a few months (if that) one will inevitably happen somewhere in the states.
Tragic but true.
Unfortunately, everything written in this post is absolutely true. There will too many Republican politicians as well as states who will refuse to pass such a bill in the congress.
In much the same way that Obama looked into closing down Guantanamo Bay, he will be rebuffed. If he was to really push any of this through, then his own life would probably be risk.
Nothing will change as long as the crazies who like guns can influence the government.
Unfortunately, in the States, there's too many of them to contend with.
I agree with you what is sad whilst talking to a few Americans in Las Vegas they were mortified of their children seeing women on the strip in crop tops and tight shorts but not the Americans carrying their guns
Obama can say whatever he likes now - knowing he doesn't have time to force it through. He's probably only too aware that his historical legacy is as a failure - Guantanamo Bay has already been mentioned, the stunted/watered-down effort at opening up healthcare that Obamacare turned into, his refusal to get the U.S. involved in a number of military deployments in the world where they really should have got involved...It's SO many years from "yes we can" - to "no we didn't".
I agree with you what is sad whilst talking to a few Americans in Las Vegas they were mortified of their children seeing women on the strip in crop tops and tight shorts but not the Americans carrying their guns
That's understandable though because it's normal in their culture for people to carry weapons for protection but (like us) they don't necessarily think it's appropriate for kids to be seeing partially "exposed" people I'm tired so exposed may not be the word I'm looking for.
Just watching his speech now in the aftermath of the Church Shootings, seems to me he is strongly suggesting that the Right To Bear Arms will have to be considered.
I do think it would be of benefit to the country if they did ban it.
his is got time for such a major change, sure he can make a dent in it, but unless a democrat replaces him, his work will be for nothing.
The US is fcuked when it comes to gun ownership! With over 300m guns legally owned and God knows how many illegally owned guns there are, removing the right to bear arms just won't happen.....and even if it did, how many of the 300m legally owned guns would become part of the illegal stockpile? The 2nd Amendment just isn't valid today and hasn't been for a very long time - it should have changed once the country created regulated and consistent law enforcement across each state.
Can't the Constitution be amended (I appreciate it takes a lot to do so)?
A super majority 2/3 amongst politicians, or a majority of 2/3 of the states.
Ain't happening. this is classic use of a tragedy to get people to do something stupid while they might accept it. Look at the crime statistics, the gun crime hotspots are covered by state/city gun banning laws. it's no co-incidence. Incidents like this tend to happen in places or area's where people don't tend to have guns, like schools.
Indeed times are a changing, an armed people country is certainly a country you don't want to invade in general, it was the case back around at the founding of the country, it's the case now with various islamic groups claiming they want to wipe out the west.
Plus even if you want to remove guns and make it more like the UK, that would be incredibly difficult and of course you can't stop criminal who don't give a crap about the law owning guns. Criminals still do here in the uk. The gun bans will certainly make things worse for a long time with these shooting before they get better, it easier when you don't have to worry about the general law abiding public shooting back.
He does not have enough votes to change anything. But he may as well use the situation and show who is against it. People in other countries manage to get by without weapons, they would in the US as well. But despite how advanced they think US is, they are backwards in many things in certain states.
Comments
the police .
whenever there's been one of these killing sprees has the gunman ever been stopped by another citizen with a gun ?
.
The right to bear arms was meant to allow the populace to defend themselves by raising a militia at a time when there was no standing army to defend America
The lack of meaningful gun control is holding the country back, as Obama said, no other civilised nation had mass shooting at the same regularity as America
The ability to shoot and kill anyone who disagrees with you prevents mature discussion of social problems, it is a nation of angry violent children prone to lethal violent outbursts like we have seen time and time again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
An off duty policeman (who wouldn't be allowed to carry from a gun ban) stopped this shooting from having a much uglier ending.
http://www.news9.com/story/29008359/witness-pulled-gun-on-burglary-suspect-who-was-beating-okc-officer
This one isn't a spree but a civilian helps save an officer from attack by pulling his gun on the attacker.
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/burglary-suspect-in-texas-calls-911-calls-for-help-as-homeowner-held-him-at-gunpoint/
Fair enough the name of this website looks biased but the facts do check out and you can verify it.
In each of these cases, any gun ban would effectively be telling these people that they don't deserve to be able to protect themselves or others from harm and should simply just take a beating or even be killed waiting for armed police to arrive. What right do we have to take away the right of self defence from those people? In America the carrying of weapons for protection is as deeply embedded in their culture as the Queen is in ours. British-type legislating against them would just mean that fewer law abiding people carry and all the criminals continue to carry, and it's no surprise what that would obviously lead to. Also the American government would probably be held criminally liable for every future murder where a weapon could have prevented the killing, but they forced people to be under equipped to protect themselves. Their finances aren't exactly great at the moment, that would cripple them.
There are plenty of occasions where an armed citizen has used their weapon to either protect themselves from attack, I've given several examples. A ban is like telling the people whose lives were saved that they don't have the right to protect themselves or others. And at the end of the day, for what? There is no proof that a gun ban would cause any less loss of life to gun crime than current laws.
We may as well start the clock ticking for the next massacre because within a few months (if that) one will inevitably happen somewhere in the states.
Tragic but true.
Unfortunately, everything written in this post is absolutely true. There will too many Republican politicians as well as states who will refuse to pass such a bill in the congress.
In much the same way that Obama looked into closing down Guantanamo Bay, he will be rebuffed. If he was to really push any of this through, then his own life would probably be risk.
I agree with you what is sad whilst talking to a few Americans in Las Vegas they were mortified of their children seeing women on the strip in crop tops and tight shorts but not the Americans carrying their guns
That's understandable though because it's normal in their culture for people to carry weapons for protection but (like us) they don't necessarily think it's appropriate for kids to be seeing partially "exposed" people I'm tired so exposed may not be the word I'm looking for.
Yes surely it can. Times change and the reasons for having guns then are different now. The pro gun lobby are bloody crazy
Now what they need is a repeat of what happened in California in the 60's when Republicans,supported by the NRA, developed a sudden passion for gun controls after the Black Panthers decided to take up their second amendment rights :cool:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BWFK8yRF4hE/UQFoVxZq82I/AAAAAAAAAUM/g6lteWU0VfM/s1600/nra+for+gun+control+in+1969.jpg
A super majority 2/3 amongst politicians, or a majority of 2/3 of the states.
Ain't happening. this is classic use of a tragedy to get people to do something stupid while they might accept it. Look at the crime statistics, the gun crime hotspots are covered by state/city gun banning laws. it's no co-incidence. Incidents like this tend to happen in places or area's where people don't tend to have guns, like schools.
Indeed times are a changing, an armed people country is certainly a country you don't want to invade in general, it was the case back around at the founding of the country, it's the case now with various islamic groups claiming they want to wipe out the west.
Plus even if you want to remove guns and make it more like the UK, that would be incredibly difficult and of course you can't stop criminal who don't give a crap about the law owning guns. Criminals still do here in the uk. The gun bans will certainly make things worse for a long time with these shooting before they get better, it easier when you don't have to worry about the general law abiding public shooting back.
thats what causes these mass shootings
Every time one of these NRA types comes out with that statement I think "if only that could come true".
have you seen the Family Guy where Peter Griffin join ACN ,they are small
All of them?
its difficult to find the data but ill guarantee hes on them
big pharma will try to stop this coming out
lots of other countries have guns but the US has disproportionate number of the mass killings
its the same as huge rise in male suicides in US and UK down to SSRIs
He has nothing to lose. He might as well go out fighting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lL8JEEt2RxI
https://vid.me/45na