Florestan posted:

 

Again, my only point is that guns are not the problem.  It is a people problem.  Take away guns and you still have the same issues whether you are British or American.

It is a people problem, the person who pulls the trigger is doing the killing. Any person who approves the sale of assault weapons is providing the assist to the person who choses to pull the trigger. Without the rapid fire weapons available to the killer in Vegas the death count and the number of wounded would have been considerably less. 

Just an American, Veteran, Father and Grandfather with an opinion. I completely support the rights of citizens to bear arms. I also believe there is a common sense solution, and part of the solution is banning assault rifles and large magazines. We will eventually get there........

JMHO - YMMV

Florestan posted:

This thread was started based on the premise that the center of all evil gun toting lunatics is in the USA.  As bad as it is (one murder by any method is too many for me) perhaps the USA anti-gun/anti-American element here should put this in perspective.  Why not worry about the number of homicides per 100,000 in countries like Honduras, Venezuela, Swaziland, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Columbia, Brazil, Panama or the Philippines?  These are the top ten worst places for homicides by guns and by a huge margin.

In a short time, you should also see US homicides by gun dropping as they no longer have a President who supplies guns to bad guys (RE: Fast and Furious Scandal).  Oh, and this was the same guy who brought up gun violence with his first words after every tragedy that happened.  

So the fact that other countries indulge in horrific slaughter by guns makes the situation in the US OK then? At what point does it make it not OK? They're up to 30,000 gun deaths per year. Will 40,000 prompt action? I accept that you'll never easily separate Americans from their precious guns, but it's the blind, illogical refusal to countenance any form of control that's so incredibly stupid. What, exactly, do people want guns for? How can anyone in their right mind justify civilians being able to buy automatic weapons? Now we have the gun lobby, who of course have no commercial interest in the propagation of firearms, pushing the idea that, if only everyone was armed to the teeth, they'll all be able to "defend themselves" against gun-wielding lunatics. Naive doesn't cover it.

Gentlemen,

true, this is called Padded Cell but this is a music-centered forum. I think that the best reaction to the Nevada tragedy should be silence. If anyone of us – as citizens of a given country or of the World – is enough sincere with himself, reasons will be found for any attitude towards the latest news. No one of us will be ever able to make someone change his mind about anything. So let's keep any opinions for (any of) ourselves. For once at least?

One day, on another forum, a guy wrote that Germany had done more for Europe than any other country in the 20th Century. I couldn't help and replied Go ask some Jews about their opinion. Now, this kind of reply spurs from the heart, but it is nonetheless always avoidable. There is no country who is not, on alternate circumstances, victim or aggressor. This time we have 58 dead and 500 wounded. Useless to sit at the Mac and do the count of, say, dead Vietnamese or Nicaraguans.

I would feel more at ease if these posts were sent to, say, The Economist or The New York Times than here. My opinions only. Sorry if I have touched anyone's sensitivity.

M.

seakayaker posted:

Florestan posted:

 

Again, my only point is that guns are not the problem.  It is a people problem.  Take away guns and you still have the same issues whether you are British or American.

It is a people problem, the person who pulls the trigger is doing the killing. Any person who approves the sale of assault weapons is providing the assist to the person who choses to pull the trigger. Without the rapid fire weapons available to the killer in Vegas the death count and the number of wounded would have been considerably less. 

Just an American, Veteran, Father and Grandfather with an opinion. I completely support the rights of citizens to bear arms. I also believe there is a common sense solution, and part of the solution is banning assault rifles and large magazines. We will eventually get there........

JMHO - YMMV

I hope you are right,  seakayaker.

Sorry Max, I fundamentally disagree. We've always been able to post our views on world events here, and until Naim decide to silence us, let this always be so.

Anyway...I've just discovered that, due to pressure from the good old gun lobby, the law enforcement agencies are forbidden to keep computerised records of gun owners. So tracing a gun to its owner or original purchaser has to be done using paper records. I'm speechless...

Florestan posted:

Just so that I fit in with the British way I would like to know what this thread is about?

Is it about gun control?
Is it just an opportunistic way to console yourselves with anti-American sentiments (we British are so much more evolved and don't have any problems in our country)?
Is it about the tragedy that occurred in Las Vegas yesterday?

Sadly, although only implied the point was not about the tragedy itself.  My reading of the original post left me with little doubt that it is aimed at the first two points.  No real reference to the event itself was given.  In my non-British ways, I simply am baffled how people take a tragedy to spout off about gun control.  This is inappropriate to use this event nearly hours after and that isn't even sorted out yet to deflect away from what the victims and their families. 

Strangely, I do recall getting many lectures here after recent British tragedies where I was told things like these things are so statistically inconsequential.  It is more likely that you get killed in a car crash etc.  When I referred to the causal nature (radical islamic terrorism) others would say this is in my head - it doesn't exist.  This was a lone wolf - a crazed person.  Where are these same people now being consistent?  No longer is this about a crazed person but guns are the issue.

So these British crazed persons used knives, bombs, vehicles.  This crazed American used guns.  Is there a difference in any form of evil depending on the weapon?  My point is only that in either case evil is evil and this is what the focus should be on.

From the original post:

I am so glad...that I don't live in a country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers.

Again, the implication is clear that the country referenced is USA.  I would call this anti-American and ridiculous to imply that all Americans are lunatics.  I am sure Britain has its share of lunatics as well?

The reason I brought up the other recent natural disasters is for the same reason that I thought it odd that no one would bring up such notable tragedies?  These are historical events.  If these events happened in the UK would you all still say intelligent things like: 

Many of us don't go in for public weeping and wailing in front of an audience highly unlikely to have been personally affected by this human tragedy. My prayers and condolences will go to those who need them, not to righteously indignant proselytising individuals who sit in judgement and condemn without a shred of evidence or justification.

No, probably not.  It is anti-Americanism, in this case, when you use an argument one way to suit yourselves and change your tune when the circumstances would be reversed.

My dear chap, you don't have a chip on your shoulder, more like a forest! This forum is no more anti-American than any other. You really should stop taking every comment so much to heart. Try pouring oil onto troubled waters instead of setting fire to it.

I take heart from a calm, organising voice of someone in the crowd whom I heard on R4 yesterday evening saying words to the effect, 'Buddy, please would you put that camera down and help me get a way through for the truck so we can these people some help'. That was leadership.

Thoughts are with the families of the dead and injured.

A question for anyone on this forum, but particularly for Florestan.

Take away the issue of the right to bear arms in the US Constitution and assume that individuals will retain the right to bear arms. Take away the issue of your own personal Nationality and your location, because this question applies to any country in the World, and not just to the United States of America.  

My question is:

Does anyone on this forum think it is a good idea to allow individuals (based anywhere in the World) the right to openly and legitimately purchase and collect automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry and ammunition?

That is really the only question at issue here. If anyone here really believes that individuals should retain the right to purchase weaponry of this sort, then I think a number of us on this forum would like to understand how you can justify and rationalise your belief? It makes no sense at all to most of us.

Yes, I do understand that there are so many weapons of this type in circulation in the US (and in many other countries in the World) that a ban on ownership of such weapons would be difficult to enforce. However, with an amnesty it would be possible to at least reduce the number of such weapons, and surely it can't be argued that a reduction of automatic weapons, and a curb on the legitimate sale of new weapons of this type isn't a good thing.

Yes Florestan, it is true that a crazed individual with the appropriate knowledge and skill-set can construct a viable explosive device and wreak havoc and devastation with that device. However, this fact does not lend itself to an argument that we should legitimise the sale of ready made explosives and bombs to make it easier for that individual to fulfil his or her goal.

Are you prepared to answer this question, or are you just content to continue to attempt to justify your reactionary posts by your repeated groundless assertions that anyone who does not conform to your viewpoint is anti-American.  

Whilst I have a degree of sympathy with Florestan's point of view in that it can come across as self righteous if critical of another country's laws and way of life, it is difficult to accept that such comments are intrinsically anti American. Surely if you had a close friend or neighbour who was doing something that appeared non sensical and intrinsically dangerous a word or words of caution are to be expected from a friend rather than decried. If you overheard your next door neighbour having trouble lighting his barbecue and planning to put petrol on it to speed up the process you would not avoid pointing out that this might not be the best idea he had ever had.

The point has been made that here in the UK we have our own issues with home grown terrorism as has been tragically evidenced of late. What is not true however are that the causes and reasons for this are 'swept under the carpet' and we certainly don't sell them the bombs in Marks and Spencers.

This might be the massacre with the highest dead toll in modern times but similar events seem to occur on a regular basis. The common factor is that the deranged individual(s) perpetrating such crimes do so with automatic weapons, thus multiplying the carnage.  To point out that taking action to better control the availability of such weapons is not anti-American.   It is just common sense.  

I see from the media this morning that the immediate reaction from the White House is calling for prayers and quotes from scriptures.  For those of a religious persuasion I hope that they can draw some comfort from this. But the harsh truth is that praying will not prevent a re-occurance any more than it did the last time. 

tonym posted:

Sorry Max, I fundamentally disagree. We've always been able to post our views on world events here, and until Naim decide to silence us, let this always be so.

Anyway...I've just discovered that, due to pressure from the good old gun lobby, the law enforcement agencies are forbidden to keep computerised records of gun owners. So tracing a gun to its owner or original purchaser has to be done using paper records. I'm speechless...

Please don't be sorry if you disagree. I want to make my point clear: it's perfectly right to have a place (this) where one can post about anything at the discretion of the moderator and the forum's rules. What I meant this time was that, for once, instead of the usual flood of opinions (most of which, let's remember, are not only anonymous but protected by an avatar so we often do not have a name and a face for what has been posted) which would have certainly raised an equal number of counter-opinions, some silence could have helped.

If the news, say, had reached some of us while at one of those old Naim Barbecues, I wonder if American pro-guns and British know-alls would have immediately started to argue with opinionated attitudes or perhaps someone would have suggested a minute of silence. I wasn't trying to silence the Padded Cell's freedom of speech: I know how useless these discussions are. I was suggesting a minute of silence, at least from the incessant, deafening noise of the written word.

Best

M

Max_B posted:

tonym posted:

Sorry Max, I fundamentally disagree. We've always been able to post our views on world events here, and until Naim decide to silence us, let this always be so.

Anyway...I've just discovered that, due to pressure from the good old gun lobby, the law enforcement agencies are forbidden to keep computerised records of gun owners. So tracing a gun to its owner or original purchaser has to be done using paper records. I'm speechless...

Please don't be sorry if you disagree. I want to make my point clear: it's perfectly right to have a place (this) where one can post about anything at the discretion of the moderator and the forum's rules. What I meant this time was that, for once, instead of the usual flood of opinions (most of which, let's remember, are not only anonymous but protected by an avatar so we often do not have a name and a face for what has been posted) which would have certainly raised an equal number of counter-opinions, some silence could have helped.

If the news, say, had reached some of us while at one of those old Naim Barbecues, I wonder if American pro-guns and British know-alls would have immediately started to argue with opinionated attitudes or perhaps someone would have suggested a minute of silence. I wasn't trying to silence the Padded Cell's freedom of speech: I know how useless these discussions are. I was suggesting a minute of silence, at least from the incessant, deafening noise of the written word.

Best

M

Some of us are straight forward enough not to hide behind an avatar or pseudonym or abreviated names. Not even when talking about cyclists or Brexit or lunatics with guns.

Expressing differing views and at least partially discussing these views often helps to rationalise our own thoughts.

I trust my point of view is clear.

Florestan posted:

Winky, that is rather dramatic, isn't it?

Maybe we shouldn't talk though about who is killing who?  Is it wrong to talk about gang violence or black on black crime?  Perhaps it is wrong to single out cities like St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit or even Chicago where Liberal mayors let these things continue unhindered and support this lifestyle rather than confront it through law & order?

I say dramatic because you would never show a graphic of people murdered by knives, hands/feet, or clubs or hammers which far surpasses your little dramatic visual which is created by an anti-gun lobby.

Again, my only point is that guns are not the problem.  It is a people problem.  Take away guns and you still have the same issues whether you are British or American.

My google-fu indicates that guns are used in approximately 60% to 70% of all US murders. Knives and blunt objects make up most of the rest. Where does your "far surpasses" allegation come from?

Please show your "alternative facts" on 2017 firearms deaths in the US to counter my "dramatic visual". 

Most everyone seemed to have focused on my anti-American reference which is unfortunate.  The truth is that it goes further than this but I did not really wish to be more specific.  It isn’t really Americans in general but a certain cross-section of Americans.  Rather than belabour this point I will let the headline from Hayley Geftman-Gold, the CBS network vice president and senior counsel who was fired yesterday for the following incident that happened yesterday on Facebook speak for itself:

"CBS has parted ways with one of the company’s top lawyer after she said she was “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the mass shooting that unfolded in Las Vegas late Sunday night.”

I only read about this incident this morning.  The truth is that the moment I saw this thread yesterday (not initially knowing it is about someone on a gun control mission and criticism of another countries constitution) I could see a similar mentality and sentiments expressed here which in my mind is clearly wrong.  I only wondered how twisted it is to focus on gun control at a time like this when 500 or 600 hundred people lives have just been devastated never mind the tens of thousand who had to experience this?  This is opportunism of the worst kind and has no place for a proper debate where one views this with reason and insight rather than scoring points politically and emotionally. 

I will also say it is strange how very few people these days know how to have a discussion and a free exchange of ideas.  It is OK if you don’t agree with me but then let’s hear your thoughts on this.  For some who have control issues they go as far as to take the time to write on how someone else shouldn’t speak or have an opinion.  This same individual gets angry also that someone else can actually enjoy music and he can’t understand why?  Miserable or what?  Another incoherent individual writes about proselytizing, judgement and condemnation while having nothing better to do than do the same as his only point.  This is called projecting.  It seems pretty irrational and angry to respond that way to someone who only said that we should pay more respect to the victims and leave the gun control debate for a different time in the future?

The point that maybe a few only understood is that this incident and every other one like it (whether the person used guns, knives, explosives, vehicles, axes, sledge hammers or a penis (used to rape someone)) is that the problem is not with these items.  Guns do not kill people and penis' do not rape women.  The problem is with the evil nature of man himself.

I do not personally own a gun.  I agree with most everyone’s sentiment about how out of hand some things are (ie. the ability to buy semi-automatic guns and military level equipment etc.).  In this we can all agree but this is not the point here.  One individual (or a small percent of society of like minded individuals does not mean the 98% percent of decent folk are capable of doing this.  Enacting some form of gun control six months ago would not have stopped this incident in Las Vegas no more than making bomb construction illegal in the UK did for the various attacks there.  The question of why this guy and others do these things in the first place is of concern to me.  This guy planned this methodically and not having guns available simply would have meant he would find another way and do something equally disturbing by some other means.  I hope the authorities can determine his motivation.  I rather doubt that their is not one other person who knew about his plans and possibly helped him in one way or another.  You see Max_B, your advice about keeping silent is dangerous.  You are just following the current trend to make people afraid to speak up and stand for what is right when an injustice occurs or if you see something that is of concern.  No one wants to stick their neck out for fear of getting shamed or getting put down for standing for something.

The secondary point is that government is still not the answer and they will not solve this problem.  Maybe in the UK their is some sort of self-satisfaction that the government knows best so everything is controlled.  You wouldn’t be satisfied unless they created a huge costly bureaucracy to control guns while ignoring the fact that you still have murders and terrorist attacks and a whole host of similar problems that happen everywhere else too.  Watching your police force respond with bobby sticks to a terrorist with a large knife slicing people up (and police officers) or mowing people down with vehicles is really sad.  What can an unarmed officer do to stop a vehicle?  This isn’t 1890 anymore.  The reason we have a police force is so that they can respond to an incident with greater authority than the perpetrators?  Why else would you need them?

Florestan posted:

The problem is with the evil nature of man himself.?

An adjective I'm happier leaving to the church.

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

Winky, that is rather dramatic, isn't it?

Maybe we shouldn't talk though about who is killing who?  Is it wrong to talk about gang violence or black on black crime?  Perhaps it is wrong to single out cities like St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit or even Chicago where Liberal mayors let these things continue unhindered and support this lifestyle rather than confront it through law & order?

I say dramatic because you would never show a graphic of people murdered by knives, hands/feet, or clubs or hammers which far surpasses your little dramatic visual which is created by an anti-gun lobby.

Again, my only point is that guns are not the problem.  It is a people problem.  Take away guns and you still have the same issues whether you are British or American.

My google-fu indicates that guns are used in approximately 60% to 70% of all US murders. Knives and blunt objects make up most of the rest. Where does your "far surpasses" allegation come from?

Please show your "alternative facts" on 2017 firearms deaths in the US to counter my "dramatic visual". 

Winky, you are correct, in general.  For context though, my statement was based only on an FBI report that stated that other means of murder (hand, hammer, baseball bat etc) exceeded murders from long guns (rifles, shotguns, and the semi-automatics like used in Las Vegas).  It is my error for not making this clearer that I was referencing a report that excluded handguns.  When you include handguns the outcome changes to what you say.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...weapon_2010-2014.xls

http://www.politifact.com/texa...more-people-are-kil/

I also asked the question though of who most of this violence is coming from and made the giant leap that it is gang activity, drug trade, criminal elements etc. ?

To lower the homicide rate for handguns would mean going after these elements.  It is bizarre that most of the worst cities in the USA with crime and murder rates all have liberal mayors who seem to turn a blind eye to this problem.  Rather than gun control, it might help to focus on the bad guys and take the guns away from them? 

Having a gun ban only really effects the law abiding citizens like me and I assume you or hunters, farmers and ranchers etc.?  If most of the murders are from inner city gangs and career criminals then what effect do you expect a gun control have on the situation?  Very little.

Just like under prohibition, the alcohol still flowed.  Under gun control, bad people will still find guns or resort to other means.

Just for comparison look at this comparison of one country that does not have gun control to two countries that do have at least more restrictions and control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tional_homicide_rate

If you sort by rate and understand that this is just a rough picture and that things change year to year.  Note that on the above FBI report that the homicide rate is in a falling pattern for the past years and as far back as 2008 in what I have seen elsewhere to confirm.

USA is 94th among the 219 countries shown with a rate of 4.88 homicides per 100,000 people (325 M pop.)
Canada is 158th among the 219 countries shown with a rate of 1.68 homicides per 100,000 people (37 M pop.)
USA is 183th among the 219 countries shown with a rate of 0.92 homicides per 100,000 people (66 M+ pop.)

My point is that for the US, gun control really wouldn't work at this point in time.  I think the number of deaths would continually fall to those of Canada / UK, for example, if there was a consistent and unified focus in the USA to take the guns away from the criminals.  This is a small group of individuals in the inner cities who are doing the most damage overall.

Florestan posted:

"CBS has parted ways with one of the company’s top lawyer after she said she was “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the mass shooting that unfolded in Las Vegas late Sunday night.”

I do not personally own a gun.  I agree with most everyone’s sentiment about how out of hand some things are (ie. the ability to buy semi-automatic guns and military level equipment etc.).  

Florestan, two quick responses to your earlier post. First, the quote you have cut & pasted above is awful and the person who uttered it should be ashamed of themselves and was rightly sacked. Second, thank you for clarifying your position on guns.  From your initial post on this thread I had mistakenly thought you might be supportive of the gun lobby. Now that I know you are not, I am seeing your comments in a different light.      

Some learned from tv that the more the corpses the more the attention...... That guy must have had hell in the brain if he knew what a 7.62 can do and liked it.....be damned...

Hmack posted:

A question for anyone on this forum, but particularly for Florestan.

Take away the issue of the right to bear arms in the US Constitution and assume that individuals will retain the right to bear arms. Take away the issue of your own personal Nationality and your location, because this question applies to any country in the World, and not just to the United States of America.  

My question is:

Does anyone on this forum think it is a good idea to allow individuals (based anywhere in the World) the right to openly and legitimately purchase and collect automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry and ammunition?

That is really the only question at issue here. If anyone here really believes that individuals should retain the right to purchase weaponry of this sort, then I think a number of us on this forum would like to understand how you can justify and rationalise your belief? It makes no sense at all to most of us.

Yes, I do understand that there are so many weapons of this type in circulation in the US (and in many other countries in the World) that a ban on ownership of such weapons would be difficult to enforce. However, with an amnesty it would be possible to at least reduce the number of such weapons, and surely it can't be argued that a reduction of automatic weapons, and a curb on the legitimate sale of new weapons of this type isn't a good thing.

Yes Florestan, it is true that a crazed individual with the appropriate knowledge and skill-set can construct a viable explosive device and wreak havoc and devastation with that device. However, this fact does not lend itself to an argument that we should legitimise the sale of ready made explosives and bombs to make it easier for that individual to fulfil his or her goal.

Are you prepared to answer this question, or are you just content to continue to attempt to justify your reactionary posts by your repeated groundless assertions that anyone who does not conform to your viewpoint is anti-American.  

HMack, I'm not actually sure what your question is?   No, I don't think semi-automatic weapons should be legal or available.  Automatic weapons are already illegal but these guys know how to make one apparently.

As I said, this all is a question I personally struggle with too.  I am not a gun advocate nor a hunter and don't ever intend to be either.  I don't even like to think about it but given the reoccurring events that seem to be happening on a regular basis it does challenge me and hopefully you as well to think beyond some binary response.

There are certain places in the world and cities that I can understand why owning a gun is realistic.  I am only talking about those who are sane and have only the best interest of their family in mind (ie. for protection or to protect your loved ones).

Do you in Britain just normally sit back or run the other way if you were involved in some sort of terrorist attack or saw someone getting mugged etc.  In most cases, this is the markings of a coward - someone who doesn't care about others so long as it doesn't involve themselves in any way.

What is most amazing to me in seeing many survivors interviewed in Las Vegas is how many heroes there are (in addition to the police and first responders.)  I'm talking about civilians who may have some sort of training or background to help out in a second and will step in front of a bullet to help someone else.  These are the type of people I want as my neighbours.  These are people I have respect for.   Yet here, it is one big smear as if all of Americans are gun toting lunatics.  The majority are good, admirable and decent people.

How many times has a civilian been able to stop a criminal from killing more people because they had a gun to stop this sick criminal before the police could arrive?  Under these situations, 5 or 10 minutes is like an eternity to wait for help to arrive.  Can't really do much with a bobby stick or taser against someone with a knife, gun, or vehicle, can you.

I don't like to think about this but ask yourself what you would do if you came home and an intruder had a knife to your wife or daughter's throat while he raped her?  Would you wonder how to increase gun control ?  Would you reason that criminals have their rights too and all he needs is a hug and that rehabilitation will help him reintegrate back in to society as a productive individual?

Sad to say but most people in the US who own a gun I am sure have thought about some hypothetical situation and asked what would they do.  Most people will never have to use it but the common thread is that it is for protection for them and their loved ones only.  Who are we to judge someone for this?

It is the small group of bad guys that everyone needs to focus on and condemn.  As a community, if you see something (or hear something), say something, is imperative.  We all have to be aware and help each other out.  I am sure that most of these big events it will come out that someone knew what was going to happen or knew or assisted in the plan.

My mistake in the above:

USA UK is 183th among the 219 countries shown with a rate of 0.92 homicides per 100,000 people (66 M+ pop.)

"I do not personally own a gun.  I agree with most everyone’s sentiment about how out of hand some things are (ie. the ability to buy semi-automatic guns and military level equipment etc.).  In this we can all agree..."

Florestan,

I'm pleased to see that there are areas on which we meet.

However the handwringing and platitudes from your President, no doubt well meant, don't address the issue. The Administration needs to grow some gonads and stand up to the bullies of the NRA. Only then will the number such atrocities as the one under discussion start to decline and, hopefully, eventually become extinct.

steve

Florestan posted:

Hmack posted:

A question for anyone on this forum, but particularly for Florestan.

Take away the issue of the right to bear arms in the US Constitution and assume that individuals will retain the right to bear arms. Take away the issue of your own personal Nationality and your location, because this question applies to any country in the World, and not just to the United States of America.  

My question is:

Does anyone on this forum think it is a good idea to allow individuals (based anywhere in the World) the right to openly and legitimately purchase and collect automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry and ammunition?

That is really the only question at issue here. If anyone here really believes that individuals should retain the right to purchase weaponry of this sort, then I think a number of us on this forum would like to understand how you can justify and rationalise your belief? It makes no sense at all to most of us.

Yes, I do understand that there are so many weapons of this type in circulation in the US (and in many other countries in the World) that a ban on ownership of such weapons would be difficult to enforce. However, with an amnesty it would be possible to at least reduce the number of such weapons, and surely it can't be argued that a reduction of automatic weapons, and a curb on the legitimate sale of new weapons of this type isn't a good thing.

Yes Florestan, it is true that a crazed individual with the appropriate knowledge and skill-set can construct a viable explosive device and wreak havoc and devastation with that device. However, this fact does not lend itself to an argument that we should legitimise the sale of ready made explosives and bombs to make it easier for that individual to fulfil his or her goal.

Are you prepared to answer this question, or are you just content to continue to attempt to justify your reactionary posts by your repeated groundless assertions that anyone who does not conform to your viewpoint is anti-American.  

HMack, I'm not actually sure what your question is?   No, I don't think semi-automatic weapons should be legal or available.  Automatic weapons are already illegal but these guys know how to make one apparently.

As I said, this all is a question I personally struggle with too.  I am not a gun advocate nor a hunter and don't ever intend to be either.  I don't even like to think about it but given the reoccurring events that seem to be happening on a regular basis it does challenge me and hopefully you as well to think beyond some binary response.

There are certain places in the world and cities that I can understand why owning a gun is realistic.  I am only talking about those who are sane and have only the best interest of their family in mind (ie. for protection or to protect your loved ones).

Do you in Britain just normally sit back or run the other way if you were involved in some sort of terrorist attack or saw someone getting mugged etc.  In most cases, this is the markings of a coward - someone who doesn't care about others so long as it doesn't involve themselves in any way. What? I can't even begin to fathom what sort of point you're making here.

What is most amazing to me in seeing many survivors interviewed in Las Vegas is how many heroes there are (in addition to the police and first responders.)  I'm talking about civilians who may have some sort of training or background to help out in a second and will step in front of a bullet to help someone else.  These are the type of people I want as my neighbours.  These are people I have respect for.   Yet here, it is one big smear as if all of Americans are gun toting lunatics. No, it isn't You're interpreting it that way.  The majority are good, admirable and decent people.

How many times has a civilian been able to stop a criminal from killing more people because they had a gun to stop this sick criminal before the police could arrive?  This is vanishingly rare. It almost never happens. Under these situations, 5 or 10 minutes is like an eternity to wait for help to arrive.  Can't really do much with a bobby stick or taser against someone with a knife, gun, or vehicle, can you.

I don't like to think about this but ask yourself what you would do if you came home and an intruder had a knife to your wife or daughter's throat while he raped her?  This is an idiotic strawman argument. Would you wonder how to increase gun control ?  Would you reason that criminals have their rights too and all he needs is a hug and that rehabilitation will help him reintegrate back in to society as a productive individual? What? What are you even talking about?

Sad to say but most people in the US who own a gun I am sure have thought about some hypothetical situation and asked what would they do.  Most people will never have to use it but the common thread is that it is for protection for them and their loved ones only.  Who are we to judge someone for this? We can judge their judgement. The chance of them actually ever using their gun for self defence is vanishingly small. The chance that they, their family or friends will end up being shot by the gun is actually much higher.

It is the small group of bad guys that everyone needs to focus on and condemn.  As a community, if you see something (or hear something), say something, is imperative.  We all have to be aware and help each other out.  I am sure that most of these big events it will come out that someone knew what was going to happen or knew or assisted in the plan.

BBC news stated that the USA has more guns in private ownership than any other country.

It also stated that 42% of all privately owned guns are in the USA.

I anticipate that big business in the USA will resist any change in the rules.

I would love to see a massive US government buyback to reduce the number of guns in circulation. This would help prevent criminals from so easily obtaining them. The private sale “gun show” loophole is absurd, so I would also like to see a consistent, nation-wide policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before being able to buy a gun. This would help prevent people with known mental disorders or a history of violence from obtaining guns.

I do not understand why gun manufacturers have such broad immunity from liability litigation. Manufacturers should be forced to make it difficult if not impossible to convert guns for automatic firing, but the reverse is true today. I also think that all new guns sold should include “smart” technology so that they can only be fired by a previously authorized user.

I don't own or like guns, but I am not what you would call “anti-gun”. I think gun ownership means something very different depending on where and how you live. If someone lives way out in the country, I can understand how they might want to own a gun for hunting and/or personal protection. But I do not feel that gun ownership in a crowded, urban environment is justifiable.

I believe that lives can be saved with some common-sense gun reforms. The really frustrating part is that a majority of the US agrees, but that's not how laws get passed (or, as we saw last year, how Presidents get elected).

Florestan posted:

<snip>

Do you in Britain just normally sit back or run the other way if you were involved in some sort of terrorist attack or saw someone getting mugged etc.  In most cases, this is the markings of a coward - someone who doesn't care about others so long as it doesn't involve themselves in any way.
<snip>

Actually a couple of weeks ago, late one night I became aware of a distressed young woman some way away outside my house.  I went to see if I could assist her, and I stayed with her despite the fact that he "boyfriend" was there and he could easily have overpowered me and caused me significant injury.  I stayed until two guys also came and she was then able to return home safely.

So suggesting that we are cowards is bang out of order.