New Gun laws for US ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:14 am

I have just learned they are trying to bring in stringent new gun laws in the US of A.

Find out about it here.

Does anybody know about this ?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:08 pm

You'd agree, presumably, with the statement that "gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries"?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:15 pm

I am amazed that such a law is being proposed.

I know what I believe about UK gun law, but would not attempt to comment on the US gun laws.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:25 pm

It's a proposed national licensing law, it doesn't appear to me to attempt to restrict ownership or possession among law-abiding citizens or to limit the power or capability of a licensed weapon.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:19 am

They need a full ban on handguns. Rifles are needed if you dont want to be had for dinner by your local friendly bear/alligator/lion/puma/wolf/etc.

As for gun laws...doesnt stop murder by knife/garrot/cop/etc...as shown quite nicely here in good 'ol UK.

Frankly I would rather be shot than knifed to death.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:40 am

Raven;1253005 wrote: They need a full ban on handguns. Rifles are needed if you dont want to be had for dinner by your local friendly bear/alligator/lion/puma/wolf/etc.

As for gun laws...doesnt stop murder by knife/garrot/cop/etc...as shown quite nicely here in good 'ol UK.

Frankly I would rather be shot than knifed to death.

Gotta agree, I'd pick being shot too. I was stabbed once and shot two different times, back in my bad old days. And if I had to defend myself I'd rather do it with a handgun. The older I get the less adept at knife fighting I am, it seems. I love a good blade but as a tool, not a weapon.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:27 am

Hoppy, your preferences are noted.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:09 am

I was stabbed once and shot two different times

Ouch.

Still got all your limbs etc?

I fell off my bicycle a few times. We lead comparatively quiet lives over here!

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:47 am

Bruv;1253017 wrote: Hoppy, your preferences are noted.

Thank you for noting my preferences.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:52 am

Every time the lieing liberal left gains power, they push for gun control. They are used to killing helpless babies. They want us all helpless so they can more easily control us.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:04 pm

hoppy;1253046 wrote: Every time the lieing liberal left gains power, they push for gun control. They are used to killing helpless babies. They want us all helpless so they can more easily control us.

So what aspect of the bill do you dislike, and why?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:50 pm

spot;1253142 wrote: So what aspect of the bill do you dislike, and why?

Cost. Gun control costs to administer. Government will get that back through fees for permits. Eventually government will raise the fees, require a permit for each gun, maybe require them to be renewed each year.

Government can then use any excuse to confiscate one's arms any time. Maybe your government is more trustworthy. Ours isn't.

I used to be a collector. Often had 50-100 firearms on the place at one time. From time to time I would sell off some, always to dealers so everything was legit and documented. I've bought guns from guys in bars, at my workplace and even at yard sales. I've enjoyed the freedom of those gone for good days. But, through donations to the NRA and JPFO, I'll still fight against more restrictions.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:46 pm

Cost ?

Is that monetary, freedom, or lives ?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:50 pm

Bruv;1253263 wrote: Cost ?

Is that monetary, freedom, or lives ?

All this has been hashed over countless times before. All you anti-gun folks can nit pick everything I post on the subject all you want. In the end, my mind won't be changed one bit by anything you say and I don't care if I change your minds. Like I said before. I support my stand on the gun issues with cash donations, letters to politicians and phone calls. What do you do?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:29 am

hoppy;1253274 wrote: All this has been hashed over countless times before. All you anti-gun folks can nit pick everything I post on the subject all you want. In the end, my mind won't be changed one bit by anything you say and I don't care if I change your minds. Like I said before. I support my stand on the gun issues with cash donations, letters to politicians and phone calls. What do you do?

But you'd still agree, presumably, with the statement that "gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries"? Merely as a statement of fact?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:09 am

spot;1253309 wrote: But you'd still agree, presumably, with the statement that "gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries"? Merely as a statement of fact?

I believe I stated my opinion on gun control.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:32 am

hoppy;1253337 wrote: I believe I stated my opinion on gun control.

Don't look to me for disagreement, I'm all in favor of Americans having as many guns of whatever capability they choose to own. I've no interest at all in disarming law-abiding civilian citizens within the Homeland. I've said before that concealed carrying should in many circumstances be an obligation, not just a right. The bill relates to licensing and you said you don't trust the government not to change the terms of the bill if it were passed, therefore you didn't want it passing because it would be the thin wedge worming its way into the current position.

Why are you so wary of commenting on the sentence I focused on from the bill - "gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries"? I merely wondered whether you felt it was a sustainable truth or whether it was an inaccurate fiction.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:49 am

spot;1253345 wrote: Don't look to me for disagreement, I'm all in favor of Americans having as many guns of whatever capability they choose to own. I've no interest at all in disarming law-abiding civilian citizens within the Homeland. I've said before that concealed carrying should in many circumstances be an obligation, not just a right. The bill relates to licensing and you said you don't trust the government not to change the terms of the bill if it were passed, therefore you didn't want it passing because it would be the thin wedge worming its way into the current position.

Why are you so wary of commenting on the sentence I focused on from the bill - "gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries"? I merely wondered whether you felt it was a sustainable truth or whether it was an inaccurate fiction.

One could accept your last statement in the same way one accepts the statement that certain races are responsible for the majority of homicides and violent crimes.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:00 am

hoppy;1253351 wrote: One could accept your last statement in the same way one accepts the statement that certain races are responsible for the majority of homicides and violent crimes.

As truths?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:38 am

I believe my statements to be true.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:46 am

hoppy;1253010 wrote: Gotta agree, I'd pick being shot too. I was stabbed once and shot two different times, back in my bad old days. And if I had to defend myself I'd rather do it with a handgun. The older I get the less adept at knife fighting I am, it seems. I love a good blade but as a tool, not a weapon.

But what does that say about society as a whole? That they feel the need to own a gun for self defense? Self defense against what??!!

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:55 am

Raven;1253649 wrote: But what does that say about society as a whole? That they feel the need to own a gun for self defense? Self defense against what??!!

Oh, I can answer that one. Against the huge number of people in the US who are not law-abiding and also carry guns. In England they're very rare and we stand a far better chance of never encountering one than law-abiding citizens in the US do.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:07 am

spot;1253651 wrote: Oh, I can answer that one. Against the huge number of people in the US who are not law-abiding and also carry guns. In England they're very rare and we stand a far better chance of never encountering one than law-abiding citizens in the US do.
It's a neverending cycle of human waste.

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:12 am

Raven;1253655 wrote: It's a neverending cycle of human waste.

But it's a very different situation, isn't it. In the UK the proportion of shooters is so small that we leave it to the police to arm themselves when people shoot, that being the way we minimise the number of people shooting. In the US guns are so ubiquitous that the same approach isn't an option. What the US currently lacks is sufficient law-abiding members of the community to carry concealed weapons on a regular basis that those engaged in criminal enterprise are deterred from doing the same. The US needs more weapons carriers, not fewer, hence my suggestion that it should be mandatory there in specifiable situations.

Saying that, I don't see that the licensing bill under discussion would do anything other than what it claims. It's an administrative measure with no capacity to reduce the number of guns on the streets.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:23 am

spot;1253656 wrote: But it's a very different situation, isn't it. In the UK the proportion of shooters is so small that we leave it to the police to arm themselves when people shoot, that being the way we minimise the number of people shooting. In the US guns are so ubiquitous that the same approach isn't an option. What the US currently lacks is sufficient law-abiding members of the community to carry concealed weapons on a regular basis that those engaged in criminal enterprise are deterred from doing the same. The US needs more weapons carriers, not fewer, hence my suggestion that it should be mandatory there in specifiable situations.

Saying that, I don't see that the licensing bill under discussion would do anything other than what it claims. It's an administrative measure with no capacity to reduce the number of guns on the streets.
You could equate guns over there with knives over here. How would licensing undercover knife carriers slow the rate of knife crime? We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking. I mean as far as law abiding figures of higher standing, London, itself boasts very few.

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:34 am

Raven;1253658 wrote: You could equate guns over there with knives over here. How would licensing undercover knife carriers slow the rate of knife crime? We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking. I mean as far as law abiding figures of higher standing, London, itself boasts very few.

There are absolutely no legal carriers of offensive knives in England other than members of the British Armed Forces going about their duty, why on earth should we license them into existence?

"We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking." is completely untrue. Without checking (I'll check if you prefer) you're comparing annual figures of perhaps 50 per million in the US with 2 per million in the UK. It's not even as close as an order of magnitude. The numbers involved in the UK are vanishingly trivially small, the only reason you find it worrying is because the Daily Mail shouts so loudly to increase its bloodstained sales.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:48 am

spot;1253663 wrote: There are absolutely no legal carriers of offensive knives in England other than members of the British Armed Forces going about their duty, why on earth should we license them into existence?

"We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking." is completely untrue. Without checking (I'll check if you prefer) you're comparing annual figures of perhaps 50 per million in the US with 2 per million in the UK. It's not even as close as an order of magnitude. The numbers involved in the UK are vanishingly trivially small, the only reason you find it worrying is because the Daily Mail shouts so loudly to increase its bloodstained sales.
How on earth did you know I read the mail!

Seriously though, thats 2 per million out of a population of 6 million. Not quite sure of the population of the states, but I reckon it's more than 6 million. Now lets look at the number of deaths by knife/gun crime so far in London. In 2005 there were reported 37 GUN crimes per 10,000 of population.

http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs/docs/gun ... report.pdf

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:56 am

Raven;1253664 wrote: How on earth did you know I read the mail!

Seriously though, thats 2 per million out of a population of 6 million. Not quite sure of the population of the states, but I reckon it's more than 6 million. Now lets look at the number of deaths by knife/gun crime so far in London. In 2005 there were reported 37 GUN crimes per 10,000 of population.

http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs/docs/gun ... report.pdf

Now thats just based upon the premise that the UK homeoffice isnt fudging the figures, which is another debate. Here is the same statistics for Indianapolis in the same year.

This table is based on crime that took place in Indianapolis Indiana and is based upon a population of 800,589 served by the Indianapolis Police Department

http://www.disastercenter.com/indiana/Y ... lisPD.html

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:23 am

Raven;1253665 wrote: Now thats just based upon the premise that the UK homeoffice isnt fudging the figures, which is another debate. Here is the same statistics for Indianapolis in the same year.

This table is based on crime that took place in Indianapolis Indiana and is based upon a population of 800,589 served by the Indianapolis Police Department

http://www.disastercenter.com/indiana/Y ... lisPD.html

Crime in the UK should be more easily controlled than it is in the USA. Who do you share orders with? Our southern border with Mexico may as well be wide open. And we have no control over who gets into Canada.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:48 am

hoppy;1253675 wrote: Crime in the UK should be more easily controlled than it is in the USA. Who do you share orders with? Our southern border with Mexico may as well be wide open. And we have no control over who gets into Canada.
We have an open and porous border with France via the Channel Tunnel. (and everyone else through Heathrow)

The NAFTA agreement pretty much shot the U.S. southern border control down.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:26 am

hoppy;1253675 wrote: Crime in the UK should be more easily controlled than it is in the USA. Who do you share orders with? Our southern border with Mexico may as well be wide open. And we have no control over who gets into Canada.

Are you saying most crime in the States is imported ?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:04 am

[QUOTE=Bruv;1253697]Are you saying most crime in the States is imported ?[/QUOTE

No. It sneaks in with the illegals. Duh!.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:28 am

Funny that.....we have the same problem in the UK.

Everything would be hunky dory if it were not for a few *cough* foreigners amongst us.

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:42 am

As far as "who do we share borders with", the entire population of the EU can travel into the UK without a passport. That's 26 other countries.

As far as Raven's "In 2005 there were reported 37 GUN crimes per 10,000 of population", my figures were for fatalities. Yours are for production of a weapon during a crime and of those, 70% are imitation weapons or air pistols. They're rarely discharged. I think both our numbers are compatible.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:55 am

Bruv;1253724 wrote: Funny that.....we have the same problem in the UK.

Everything would be hunky dory if it were not for a few *cough* foreigners amongst us.

At one time I read that when the USSR collapsed, what is now the Czech republic, found it's borders being overrun with all sorts of characters committing all manner of crimes. The Czech's made permits to carry available to it's law abiding citizens to counter this crime wave. I don't know what their stance is now.

The USA reacts to increased crime by making firearms harder to obtain by those most needing them. Dammit, I want to be just as well armed as the dirt bags are. They can go see their cousin, who knows a guy who has a brother who can get them a full auto weapon for a sum of money. I would have to fork over tons of money and wade through piles of paperwork to MAYBE get one. Just ain't fair.:-1