Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 11281876)

I'm afraid I disagree, Iain. Guns were invented as an instrument of death - an instrument more efficient than swords and battleaxes. Some modern guns have found more specialised uses in shooting at non-living targets, but the gun, as a concept, remains a tool rooted in the idea that it is a more effective way of despatching enemies than poking holes in them or cutting bits off them.

As it happens, I quite enjoy shooting. I've shot for game birds (in the UK, not here), I've taken part in competitive shooting with rifles and handguns, and a good day out blasting clays is excellent fun. But, in every instance, the instructor/organizer/rules etc are very, very clear. Don't point a gun anywhere other than down the range or at the ground; certainly don't point it at anybody or anything unless you intend to do it harm. To do so is foolish and dangerous, even with a .22 target pistol.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11281886)

So, should we ban archery too while we are at it, and crossbows.

Lets ban SUVs too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/wo...hina.html?_r=0

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 11281902)

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here anyway. Are you arguing that anybody should be able to go to a bit showroom and buy the gun of their choice as they can with a car today?

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11281882)

And no one yet has addressed the very simple point that you can pass as many laws as you like, it wont make much difference to someone who has decided they are going to kill someone else. After all, that is already pretty illegal, the gun law aspect is kind of like doing a mafia boss for tax evasion.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 11281947)

It might not make any difference to the truly determined killer of a specific person.

A difference is in the killing of people with whom one is mildly irritated; attempt to punch them to death and you'll get tired and they'll hit back, attempt to stab them and they may run away, shoot them and that's that.

Another difference is to the killing of bystanders; I was once in a bar when a fight broke out, one fellow swung wildly, missed his target and hit a woman at the bar, her man piled in and it was like the wild west. We were in Gilroy, CA, a rural bar but one with a gun check. In the absence of the gun check half the people in the bar would be dead by now. Bullets are less targetted than fists.

Take the guns away and the problem's done.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 11280671)

They're comfortable with a reasonable level of random death as part of the price of freedom to keep arms.

Originally Posted by orly (Post 11280673)

Regarding guns...I generally don't have a problem with people having them ...

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11281922)

My point is that unhinged people that wish to kill in large numbers are going to find a way to do that whether guns are tightly controlled or not.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11282028)

There are many difficulties of practicalities though.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11281882)

I am in a pretty rural area. Many of my neighbors hunt. The ones that come out from the city to their cottages by the river generally dont.

I dont think there are any hard and fast rules regarding who hunts. Many of the members of the local "fish and game club" (shooting range) hunt, and many of those are actively involved in conservation efforts to ensure that there are still things for them to shoot in seasons to come.

Many of the members of the club have no interest in killing anything and shoot only targets. One thing they all seem to have in common is a desire to see weapons used responsibly.

You just cant paint everyone the same in this debate.

And no one yet has addressed the very simple point that you can pass as many laws as you like, it wont make much difference to someone who has decided they are going to kill someone else. After all, that is already pretty illegal, the gun law aspect is kind of like doing a mafia boss for tax evasion.

There are a lot of guns out there, and a lot of people use them for pleasure. Passing laws is not going to change either of those facts or stop guns getting into the hands of the very tiny proportion of the population that we should be concerned about. The gun genie is out of its bottle in north america and no amount of hand wringing is going to put it back Im afraid. Deal with the people that should not have guns more effectively, rather than criminalizing the responsible majority.

Originally Posted by Souvy (Post 11282092)

Er, Al Capone was finally got on tax evasion.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11281959)

However, this thread stemmed from comments made by John Oliver regarding inaction in the face of so many school shootings, and lets face it, no one in US politics or in the media is getting stirred up by the ridiculous murder rate, its the mass killings that prompt any calls for action.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11282096)

Really, I had no idea;)<sarcasm off>

Did it not seem a bit strange to you that they did not have effective laws that they could apply to his other antisocial activities?

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11282078)

How so? You go rent an SUV and go find a bus line up. Bingo, you get your 15 minutes of noteriety and die in a hail of police bullets.

Same end result, no need to find a gun.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11282113)

Of course. But would you rather encounter a shooter or someone with a knife who needs to be close enough?

Originally Posted by Souvy (Post 11282110)

I think it more the case that he was rather good at not getting caught on his other naughtiness?