Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Gun Control Tightened in the USA



BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,013
Apologies if fixtures.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-guns-idUSKBN0UI1UQ20160106

It looks like the US is taking a step in the right direction but will this prove to be too little too late?

I like the guy in the video pointing out that all the massacres took place in gun free zones. Although it must be pointed out that they were not gun free at the time of the massacres, if they had been the body count would have been much lower.
 


Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted comes to mind. Millions and millions of guns already on the streets of the USA.
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,013
Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted comes to mind. Millions and millions of guns already on the streets of the USA.

Yeah I hear you. Gotta be better than nothing though.

The USA's relationship with guns is going to be a bloody hard thing to dismantle and you have got to start somewhere.
 




scamander

New member
Aug 9, 2011
596
like many you might be wondering why there has been resistance to this in the US. From what I've read the main issue that the 'anti' has on this is that it is largely ineffective. One chap I read made a quite cogent argument saying that the recent shootings would still have occurred if this had been in place, terrorists generally don't buy their weapons from a retailer and school shootings are often done with weapons taken from close family.

Thus the effects of this will likely fall on those legally buying weapons, who are far less involved in the shootings we see or hear about. There's also the fear that they have of the Govt using an arbitrary term' terrorist' to blacklist anyone applying for a gun.

This itself is part of a larger issue of the Govt infringing on their rights to have a weapon. Now this seems bizarre to most on this side of the pond (myself included) but it's worth considering how much of a sensitive issue this is. Since we are on a football board I'll take the example of football clubs moving location, so when MK Dons appeared on the landscape many recoiled in horror as for most fans (certainly all that I know) a club needs to stay where it is or has always been. Conversely someone from outside the football community may not appreciate this and point to the arguments used to support the move.

Herein lies the problem, the gun issue is to the US what the NHS is to us. The merest whiff of change or alteration of it evokes a strong reaction for what it stands for. Many US citizens see it as the line in the sand between individual and state. There are those who don't of course, but I'm trying to put across what I understand the counter to the gun changes are.

Again - I'm playing devil's advocate here, so please don't take the above of my support to it. I just found it intriguing as to why the 'anti' brigade were in voice.
 




drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
like many you might be wondering why there has been resistance to this in the US. From what I've read the main issue that the 'anti' has on this is that it is largely ineffective. One chap I read made a quite cogent argument saying that the recent shootings would still have occurred if this had been in place, terrorists generally don't buy their weapons from a retailer and school shootings are often done with weapons taken from close family.

Thus the effects of this will likely fall on those legally buying weapons, who are far less involved in the shootings we see or hear about. There's also the fear that they have of the Govt using an arbitrary term' terrorist' to blacklist anyone applying for a gun.

This itself is part of a larger issue of the Govt infringing on their rights to have a weapon. Now this seems bizarre to most on this side of the pond (myself included) but it's worth considering how much of a sensitive issue this is. Since we are on a football board I'll take the example of football clubs moving location, so when MK Dons appeared on the landscape many recoiled in horror as for most fans (certainly all that I know) a club needs to stay where it is or has always been. Conversely someone from outside the football community may not appreciate this and point to the arguments used to support the move.

Herein lies the problem, the gun issue is to the US what the NHS is to us. The merest whiff of change or alteration of it evokes a strong reaction for what it stands for. Many US citizens see it as the line in the sand between individual and state. There are those who don't of course, but I'm trying to put across what I understand the counter to the gun changes are.

Again - I'm playing devil's advocate here, so please don't take the above of my support to it. I just found it intriguing as to why the 'anti' brigade were in voice.

I wouldn't compare it to football clubs moving, afterall, that happens in the states with their franchises. Surely a better comparison is to fox hunting. No logical reason for it other than perceived tradition.

The problem in the States is that the lobbyists, ie the NRA, have considerable influence on the law makers. The proposals might not have changed some of the massacres but it is a step in the right direction. It will of course take many steps.
 


StonehamPark

#Brighton-Nil
Oct 30, 2010
9,762
BC, Canada
like many you might be wondering why there has been resistance to this in the US. From what I've read the main issue that the 'anti' has on this is that it is largely ineffective. One chap I read made a quite cogent argument saying that the recent shootings would still have occurred if this had been in place, terrorists generally don't buy their weapons from a retailer and school shootings are often done with weapons taken from close family.

Thus the effects of this will likely fall on those legally buying weapons, who are far less involved in the shootings we see or hear about. There's also the fear that they have of the Govt using an arbitrary term' terrorist' to blacklist anyone applying for a gun.

This itself is part of a larger issue of the Govt infringing on their rights to have a weapon. Now this seems bizarre to most on this side of the pond (myself included) but it's worth considering how much of a sensitive issue this is. Since we are on a football board I'll take the example of football clubs moving location, so when MK Dons appeared on the landscape many recoiled in horror as for most fans (certainly all that I know) a club needs to stay where it is or has always been. Conversely someone from outside the football community may not appreciate this and point to the arguments used to support the move.

Herein lies the problem, the gun issue is to the US what the NHS is to us. The merest whiff of change or alteration of it evokes a strong reaction for what it stands for. Many US citizens see it as the line in the sand between individual and state. There are those who don't of course, but I'm trying to put across what I understand the counter to the gun changes are.

Again - I'm playing devil's advocate here, so please don't take the above of my support to it. I just found it intriguing as to why the 'anti' brigade were in voice.

The main difference being that guns take 10's of thousands of lives in the US each year (many of which are young children).
So it should be taken far more seriously than privatizing the NHS or Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes.

Basically; someone from outside the football (Gun) community should appreciate this and act on it.
Hopefully the US will start to see some kind of change - pending who the Yanks vote for next.
 


scamander

New member
Aug 9, 2011
596
The main difference being that guns take 10's of thousands of lives in the US each year (many of which are young children).
So it should be taken far more seriously than privatizing the NHS or Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes.

Basically; someone from outside the football (Gun) community should appreciate this and act on it.
Hopefully the US will start to see some kind of change - pending who the Yanks vote for next.

I was using both examples to highlight a point, namely that there is a cultural angle on this which sits outside the logical process and may be worth considering when trying to understand the arguments. I wasn't comparing gun crime with the NHS, nor football clubs with it. Just that they share a cultural sensitivity which is, as previously mentioned, worth considering.

The issue which I see is that the US can really only control legally obtained guns. The horror shows we often see are the result of illegally obtained ones (either borrowed from family or bought illegally). The San Bernandino shooting and the Oregon shooting both involved individuals who would have passed the checks which are being brought in.

The reality is that as per other posts, the genie is out of the bottle and this combined with the NRA means little is ever likely to happen. The US is really stuck.
 




StonehamPark

#Brighton-Nil
Oct 30, 2010
9,762
BC, Canada
The issue which I see is that the US can really only control legally obtained guns. The horror shows we often see are the result of illegally obtained ones (either borrowed from family or bought illegally). The San Bernandino shooting and the Oregon shooting both involved individuals who would have passed the checks which are being brought in.

The reality is that as per other posts, the genie is out of the bottle and this combined with the NRA means little is ever likely to happen. The US is really stuck.

100% agree, unfortunately it's probably far too late to make any real difference.

This subject always reminds me of the 3 minute cartoon from the Bowling for Columbine documentary.
Worth a quick watch.

 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,989
Goldstone
They should legalise the selling of nuclear weapons over the counter, and see how that works out. I wonder if they think there will be an increase in the number of fatalities. Presumably not, it's not weapons that kill people, it's people.
 


JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
This very minor adjustment to gun controls will probably make little or no difference but will energize the gun lobbyists to redouble their efforts to buy even more influence to prevent anything like this ever happening again.

But at least Obama tried.
 






scamander

New member
Aug 9, 2011
596
the other important thing to factor in is that most gun deaths in the US are suicides. If you commit suicide with a gun it's classified as a gun-related death, which is fair, but then it can be used statistically to paint a somewhat misinformed picture. One of the overarching problems is the very aggressive debate fostered by both sides who are happy to twist the stats. A sensible debate would at least give some resolution a chance.
 


vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,867




Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
Interesting stat yesterday morning on BBC Breakfast.

UK deaths (not including suicide) from guns in 2014: 24
Deaths on Christmas day in Baltimore (or somewhere similar, don't remember exactly) from guns: 23
 


The Spanish

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2008
6,477
P
They should legalise the selling of nuclear weapons over the counter, and see how that works out. I wonder if they think there will be an increase in the number of fatalities. Presumably not, it's not weapons that kill people, it's people.

in fairness theres loads of nuclear weapons, but they havent killed anyone since 1945
 








wellquickwoody

Many More Voting Years
NSC Patreon
Aug 10, 2007
13,584
Melbourne
The only chance America has to tighten gun controls is a Presidet like Obama who isn't standing for reelection.

I'm sure Hilary Clinton agrees with him but she's wiselykeeping her head down at this stage.

Very good :thumbsup:
 


The Spanish

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2008
6,477
P
CNN is going with this massively today, its really good coverage.

no ones mentioned the texas open carry laws yet though on here.....
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here