There have been several discussions recently (TV, radio, newspapers) about the US gun laws, in light of the recent shooting in CT.

I have to say that in most cases, the British interviewers and guests come across as very level-headed, reasonable, and intelligent whereas most of the pro-gun guests from the US just seem slightly deranged. References to the right to bear arms to avoid oppression by countries lilke the UK (it was 200 years since the last time we threatened the US) and Nazi Germany (Europe had a lot more bombs dropped on it than the US and we don't feel the need to legislate in favour of having a mini-arsenal in our homes).

It makes you somewhat proud to be British/European and also worried for the US.

I agree. There has to be something wrong with a country that has so many of these shooting attacks. Other countries have jealousy murders, family dominance murders, racial and tribal attacks of all kinds, but as best I know, only the US has so many of these slaughters by men who feel bad about something and set out to shoot a lot of people, most of whom they don't know.

It is men. I believe the only woman to do anything similar was Aileen Wuornos who shot five male strangers at different times. Charlize Theron played her in the movie Beast. There have been women serial killers, but none have used guns and they don't go after strangers. They're people like nurses who kill a number of patients, or women who poison their entire family.

But I have little faith that the US will do anything meaningful about the situation, which is another sign of the national problem.

Bev

The right to bear arms and kill people.

The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when there was genuine fear that the British would be back to overthrow the Revolution.
It was also a time when a musket took almost a minute to reload and fire.
The Founding Fathers must turn in their graves to see the Constitution used to justify the sickening machismo of gangbangers and maniacs.

However,


Its not the guns, its the people behind them. I dont see a problem with guns, I support the gun, the right to bear arms with restrictions on the kind of firearm.

There should be a media blackout when these kind of crimes are committed, perhaps without the WOW factor many of these acts my not have happened.

But of course the media know how to round up the sheep and milk it for their own ends!

I can't understand how the right to bear arms overrides the right of average people to live in safety. And the gun nuts on TV banging on about the second amendment always conveniently forget the 'well-regulated' part of the amendment.

Allowing average people to have guns is madness in my opinion and no one will ever convince me otherwise. I don't care that lots of people who own guns don't want to do any harm - they often do anyway (as in this case where the guns belonged to the shooter's mum). And anyway, life's not fair and we can't always have what we want. I want to eat cake and chocolate and never put on any weight, but it doesn't work like that, so I can't. Some people want to drive cars at 150 MPH but it's dangerous so we don't let them. Life's a bitch sometimes. Suck it up.

I don't agree that there should be a media blackout. I think every American should be made to see the results of their mad gun policy because that's the only way anything will ever change. I don't hold out any hope for meaningful change though because the public don't want it. I'm glad I left.

Regarding gun control and health care the level of discussion seems to sink lower and lower. I agree that the results should be shown in the media - people should see the consequences of their beliefs.

I totally agree, for that reason I too would want to own a gun if I lived in the US.

These kinds of shootings are a relatively new phenomenon, and they seem to be on the increase, perhaps with media/social network sites there is that opportunity to distance these events to avoid such things as copy cat behaviour etc.

As for your opinion on gun nuts on TV banging on about the second amendment, this is all part of the media game, playing this event for what its worth, giving oxygen to some low life to fan the flames of opinions.

There are a majority of gun owners who are decent people, but sadly the media distort everything for the sheep.

You may well be glad you left but Im sure you were never told to leave at gun point.

This is actually a UK experience but still valid I think.

A manager I worked for years ago was a member of a gun club. I don't know what weapons he had but I believe there were three guns of differing types. He kept them as the law apparently told him to, in a metal safe, bolted to the floor of the bedroom (in his new-estate, cardboard-style house, so not that sturdy for starters!!). He had two wild teenage sons, so it was a worry from the start.

He then moved his girlfriend into the house. She was a childminder, 4 or 5 kids under 6, including one of her own, in the house most days.
He would come home from work, and get the guns out and clean them, load them or whatever, in the bedroom - or down in the kitchen, with the kids in the house running around, before going off to his club with them.

We had a huge row at work one day over it because they wanted to change the law so that if you were applying for a childminder's licence, or similar, you had to declare if anyone in the household held a firearms licence, or possessed weapons, and I said if my kids were being minded there I thought I had the right to know if there were guns in the house - and I would remove the kids if i found there were. he could never see my point, that any of those kids could've walked in on him while he was holding a gun, and his own sons could've got access easily enough (through the spare key )

He was a small, meek man - with a nasty temper and a tendency to hold grudges. We often said it work we could see how he might turn one day if provoked. Thankfully he never did.

I could just never see why he had to keep the guns in the house. He claimed he only used them at the club. So why couldn't they be kept there?

Presumably because it was his right to keep them at home. That's the usual lame logic.

I have never understand the desire to own a gun and never will, the people I know in Australia that own guns are the last people that should. I think it has gone past the point of no return in America to be honest, too many loonies with too many guns. While you have radical organisations like the NRA who's members are willing to do literally anything to keep their weapons nothing will change. The mother of the latest lunatic who was the legal owner of 5 guns was a primary school teacher, she was a member of a doomsday cult and owned an assault rifle, legally. I'm sorry but when I look at America I just think you reap what you sow.

I know they don't want to do anything radical but I think the only way to begin to put 'the genie back in the bottle' in the USA would be to make gun ownership illegal for everyone born after a certain date, so they grow up knowing this i.e. that they will never be allowed to own guns as per UK post Dunblane.
I don't see given the prevalence of guns how you could get people to turn them in without a bloodbath.
Obviously assault weapons should be restricted immediately.
Of course what I really think is that they are all nuts and nothing will change.
To return to another thread, there seems to be too much emphasis on God such that it is not for Governments to try to make life more bearable for the vast majority. 'No to Big Government, Yes to God'....my/our thoughts and prayers are with the victims'...like that does any good eh Chris.

Only a nation that believes in such large numbers in an afterlife could care to legislate so little to alleviate the obvious social problems and issues confronting it.
Apparently sane Americans I know are now calling for teachers to be routinely armed in schools. Barmy.

Post-Dunblane I don't think this is now allowed surely?

Wiki:
'1997 Firearms Act
Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning private possession of handguns almost completely. Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "black powder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Under certain circumstances, individuals may be issued a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) licence. Even the UK's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or abroad (in Switzerland, in practice).[55]'

The post wasn't about possession it was about location ... I was really only commenting about mentality rather than legality.

The pro gun lobby, powerful as it is, capture the headlines. IMHO I feel that many US citizens carry, or at least have access to, weapons because it makes them feel more secure/less vulnerable, even if they have no intention of owning one.

It is more a societal problem than a gun law problem.

As with everybody, the majority are decent.

Then there are the morons.

Then there are the morons who think it okay to give morons guns.