US Handgun ban

As long as gunshot victims don't need to rely on their medical insurance.....

Michael Moore must have another film in the making form this.

Tony

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:

Still shaking my head in amazement at how a country as advanced as the US can make decisions like these.

Jim

You think so? I am not so sure. If you look at a lot of big successful technology companies in the US a non-US national often British, will be leading the thinking in some form.

Jono

How come Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership (I think), but manage not to be a complete bunch of twats with them?

quote:

Originally posted by rgame666:
How come Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership (I think), but manage not to be a complete bunch of twats with them?

Is it somehow connected with yodelling?

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
....seems to be to be the most incredibly stupid decision by an "informed" group of judges.

Scalia & Co. are essentially constitutional fundamentalists. Their entire constitutional viewpoint being enshrined by a literalist reading of a 230 year old document which was written to address the needs of a newborn, still fragile and agrarian society.

Another judicial system that depends on a literalist interpretation of an old, out of date document would be the Taliban.

I'm currently in Chicago where I spend a lot of my time, and residents here are generally aghast. Most Chicagoans are reminded on a weekly basis of the malevolence of handguns in the general population.

Does the NRA not comprehend that they've essentially done the legal work for the criminal gun owners whom they seek to protect themselves against?

Jim, I'm sorry we'll be losing you. Where are your off to?

daniel

I think rgame666 has a point. I don't think legal gun ownership has any direct coralation to gun crime. I think the US problem is more to do with the overly casual attitude to guns than the actual posession of them.

Reap what ye shall sow, I guess.
Chris Rock suggested that its OK to own guns, but bullets should cost $1000's each. Not a bad idea!
Matt.

Despite Scalia's self-proclaimed adherence to the original intent of the Constitution, this decision required him to ignore completely a significant clause.

Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito ... lying, partisan, arrogant, reckless, and in the end, morally bankrupt.

Some families will suffer tremendously because of their gun decision.

But 20 years under Reagan and Bush have left us with so many other problems that the gun issue may prove to be minor.

Phil Barry

quote:

Originally posted by rgame666:
How come Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership (I think), but manage not to be a complete bunch of twats with them?

What, you have to own a gun if you live in Switzerland?!!

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:

quote:

Originally posted by rgame666:
How come Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership (I think), but manage not to be a complete bunch of twats with them?

What, you have to own a gun if you live in Switzerland?!!

Only if you complete National Service I think, but they do have problems with this policy.

Jono

quote:

Originally posted by dsteady:

I'm currently in Chicago where I spend a lot of my time, and residents here are generally aghast. Most Chicagoans are reminded on a weekly basis of the malevolence of handguns in the general population.

Although I have mixed feelings about the current Chicago Mayor Daley I really like what he said about the Supreme Court handgun ruling. Chicago is one of the progressive cities with a handgun ban, and he spoke passionately for about ten minutes against the ruling.

The gist of his remarks was that the Supreme Court justices are protected from handguns ... one cannot, under normal circumstances, get into a court, or almost any government building, with a handgun. Judges, Congress, and the rich and powerful in general are well protected from handguns attacks.

It's the powerless, the poor, the working class, the common folk in America who bear the brunt of the obscene proliferation of handguns, the vast majority of which are not used to in self defense but, rather, are used in the heat of the moment in domestic disputes (often fueled by alcohol and other drugs, and often stoked by the desperation of poverty), used in gang-related shootings which often seem to kill more innocent bystanders (too often, children) than gang members, used in accidental shootings by young children who think it's a toy, and frequently stolen by criminals and used in during the commission of crimes.

Mayor Daley is absolutely right on in this regard: the rich and powerful continue to be protected, everyone else gets screwed.

Fred

fred, amen, brother. it's the american way ...

quote:

The NRA leadership will be swimming in Champagne over the last few days I would think.

Nitroglycerine, probably. Perfectly safe if you knew how to handle it...

JohanR

Daniel

quote:

Jim, I'm sorry we'll be losing you. Where are your off to?

daniel

Most likley will buy or build a house in Scotland and commute to London/Europe as needed....no offence to anyone in the south of England but I couldn't face living and working in the London area full time.

As for handguns, living in the Chicago western suburbs I also see the daily deaths of many as a result of gun misuse and I hate to think how many kids have been killed this year alone, particularly on the southside.

To Fred's point on Mayor Daley - I dislike the guy as mayor but he nailed this one as you say.

Cheers

Jim

Little consolation, but semi-automatic and automatic handguns could still not be permitted–a minor distinction to some, but it still keeps the issue on the NRA's political radar...from a prosecutor's standpoint, makes a gun crime much more cut and dried (must think to arm weapon for second shot).

Disagree with the ruling myself, as I never fancied handguns as any real sort of "protection" anyway–and with a young child at home, it'll be a cold day in hell before I have a loaded handgun in my residence. Period.

David

quote:

Disagree with the ruling myself, as I never fancied handguns as any real sort of "protection" anyway–and with a young child at home, it'll be a cold day in hell before I have a loaded handgun in my residence. Period.

Same here....although a blunt instrument comes in handy from time to time when they get older!

Jim

rgame666,
IIRC, Switzerland used to require that Army reservists (effectively, all National Servicemen) kept their rifles. These were long guns, not handguns. Most gun crimes seem to be committed using handguns.

Fred,
I agree wholeheartedly. It's a pity though that your preferred candidate for the Presidency now seems to be supporting the Court's decision (along with a raft of other leaps to the political right). If the UK media reports are to be believed, he now seems to be courting the Republican vote and support for handguns is part of his current policy.

Ken

I'm with the NRA on the point that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

In the strictest sense of the term that's absolutely true.

HOWEVER, when a culture has serious issues with a particular thing it would be better for the greater good for that thing (be it drugs, sex, gambling, firearms etc) to be difficult to get hold of , if not impossible.

Some nations have large numbers of firearms owners, yet are not generally running amok on themselves.

Australia and New Zealand are examples of this.

Some countries have a far worse problem with alcohol related crime and car accidents.

Dead is still dead, no matter how it happens.

David Byrne was right when he pointed out that these problems are not the problem in themselves, but the symptoms of a sick society.

USA does not have great record on car mortality either. The same twisted logic says it's against my constitutional rights to be forced to wear a seat belt.
Cleaver lot those founding fathers,thought of everything!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe90:
I'm with the NRA on the point that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

Joe,
No, guns don't kill people, but they make it a hell of a lot easier. And handguns make it much easier than rifles. A handgun ban, I agree makes a lot of sense.
Ken

quote:

A handgun ban, I agree makes a lot of sense.

I wouldn't think a total handgun ban was a good thing.

I've spent loads of time plinking at targets on farms with air rifles and .22 handguns and it's a safe, fun past time. It encourages respect, safety, a steady hand, a cool head (not that it's the only thing that does that of course).

And no doubt it's a very environmentally friendly form of pest control versus all out poisoning and the awful practice of trapping.

Never ever thought about turning it on someone - even during a heated argument about whose turn it was next!

That's because I'm not a nutter. Nutters with handguns is the problem. Not the handgun.

The snag with the whole thing is you can't uninvent something that has since been proven to be generally a bad idea...

Well said, Joe.

Problem is this, wait for the Orlando Gun Show, wander up there with a wad of $$$ in your hand, buy gun and ammo, walk out the door.

No checks what so ever done, you could have just got out of the loony bin and there ya go all tooled up :-)

Also, the powers that be have just said it is legal for everyone to take their guns to work.
In my opinion this is slightly less irritating than these take your bloody kids to work!u

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Lockhart:

Michael Moore must have another film in the making from this.

He's already made it: Bowling For Columbine. It's very good.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

Nutters with handguns is the problem. Not the handgun.

Not just nutters ... children who think it's a toy, criminals, the emotionally distraught (but otherwise sane), those temporarily impaired by alcohol and other drugs (but otherwise sane).

And then there's Joe Horn of Texas, who killed two burglars robbing his neighbor's house even though the police dispatcher he had called warned him not to, saying "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" He shot anyway, because obviously to him property (not even his own!) is more important than human life. Why do I suspect that he may also be "pro-life" on the abortion issue? Just a hunch.

Fred