Obama calls for Gun Control Laws

[Ardemax]

Normally I would consider myself left-leaning, but I'm really against this legislation. Like many others have said, since when do criminals follow laws?

The only thing that this will accomplish is taking guns out of the hands of people who use them lawfully and up the prices on the black market for the multitude of guns that are already around. There's no way they can ever confiscate ALL of the so-called 'assault weapons' that have been sold over the years in the US. Regardless of what people say, the second amendment was not designed to protect someone's right to hunt - it was put in place to defend against those threatening one's family or property, emergency use in a foreign invasion (unlikely), and yes, to oppose the government if it becomes tyrannical.

While the tragedies that have occurred are sad (as a citizen of Colorado, I know all too well - I live 10 minutes from Aurora), taking away the right to purchase guns won't stop people from finding them. Even if they can't, it's not difficult to make a bomb that could kill just as many in a small, enclosed space like a classroom or a movie theater.

Look at Mexico - while it is technically legal to own a firearm given you meet all of the criteria, it is almost impossible for a normal citizen to carry one outside of their own home. Members of the cartels don't seem to care about the law, and the country has a homicide rate of 22.7 per 100,000 people, versus the United States at 4.8 per 100,000. In the UK, the murder rate is 12 per 100,000. Note that gun violence is significantly lower in the UK than in the US or Mexico, but the overall rate indicates that the ability to own and carry a gun with you acts as a deterrent against those who would otherwise commit murder using another method. I'm not entirely clear on whether or not a citizen of the UK can carry a concealed weapon though, if anyone can clear that up for me it would be great.

Somehow I get the feeling that our current system works a little better than the UK's or Mexico's. Nothing you EVER do can prevent 100% of all tragedies. If someone wants to commit mass murder, they will find a way, with or without a gun. The only thing keeping them legal changes is that an armed citizen has a chance to minimize the damage before the authorities can respond.

I'm quoting Wikipedia here but the murder rate in the UK is 1.2 per 100,000 and not 12 as you have stated.

Also to your very first line, by going by the attitude of "no criminals follow laws anyway" we shouldn't have laws at all because all the good and righteous would do what is morally right anyway, surely...

The legislation is probably just going to take away assault rifles, not things like handguns. I mean really, who the hell needs an assault rifle lying around in the garage in case the government turn against "us"?

I see pros and cons for both sides of the arguments of whether a country should relax its guns laws or not but I just keep asking myself whether I would feel safer in a country where guns are totally illegal and clamped down on (UK) or whether I'd feel safer in a country where people are allowed guns to defend themselves. It's like going out with a knife: the person who is most likely to get stabbed is yourself.

May have gone off topic slightly & I apologise

[JoeyK.]

I'm quoting Wikipedia here but the murder rate in the UK is 1.2 per 100,000 and not 12 as you have stated.

Also to your very first line, by going by the attitude of "no criminals follow laws anyway" we shouldn't have laws at all because all the good and righteous would do what is morally right anyway, surely...

The legislation is probably just going to take away assault rifles, not things like handguns. I mean really, who the hell needs an assault rifle lying around in the garage in case the government turn against "us"?

I see pros and cons for both sides of the arguments of whether a country should relax its guns laws or not but I just keep asking myself whether I would feel safer in a country where guns are totally illegal and clamped down on (UK) or whether I'd feel safer in a country where people are allowed guns to defend themselves. It's like going out with a knife: the person who is most likely to get stabbed is yourself.

May have gone off topic slightly & I apologise

You're right, I misquoted Wiki myself - the UK does have only 1.2 per 100k, my apologies - I'll use my horrible vision as an excuse . No, it would not remove the right to non 'assault' weapons, but I see this as a dangerous first step to even more restrictive laws.

The simple fact is that when the US was founded, the Bill of Rights was to serve as a basic guarantee of what each American citizen has a right to, and I don't believe that we should pass further laws to continually limit what that means, whether it's deciding what is 'hate speech', what guns you can or cannot own, who has a right to a trial by jury, and in the last few years almost all of these rights have been narrowed down, something that really disturbs me. I'm just tired of living in a country that is supposed to be 'free' when our rights are constantly reduced over the years. Apparently these days you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you agree with the majority, which is exactly what we were trying to prevent.

I see what you mean on my comment on following the laws, but I stand by my argument that if criminals can obtain these weapons, we should as a people have a right to them ourselves to defend against that possibility. If a felon breaks into your house with a semi-automatic rifle and you have a little handgun, who has the upper hand? Yes, weapons are commonly used against those who wield them, which is why it should be required to take a training course on how to use any weapon you purchase so you know how to use it properly. I personally carry a knife for work, but I would be more than capable of using it in self defense if necessary. I don't even own guns, outside of two hunting rifles i inherited from my father kept at my grandparents' home on the other side of the country.

Instead of banning these outright, I would prefer seeing stricter regulations on when and where you can carry specific weapons. For example, you can carry a handgun with you around town (barring schools, government buildings and the like), and you can carry a rifle or two with you if you're in a designated hunting area. However, if you own one of these 'assault weapons,' it should stay in your own home for self-defense purposes only.

Like I said - no legislation will EVER be able to stop people from doing this. The only thing it will accomplish is keeping the weapons in question from being used by law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves.

There's also the issue of border control between the US and Mexico - I don't think the UK has a neighbor so close that is entrenched in as much violence as we see here. If we outlaw these weapons, it becomes another good for them to bring over the border (whether to sell or to use), and will only cause the violence to spread further from the south.

My wife was born in Mexico, and still has family down there. It's absolutely terrible - there's news of more murders each day, and the normal citizens have no way of defending themselves other than to aid the cartels. Maybe if they could mow down a group of ten outlaws with a single weapon in a matter of seconds they'd think twice before invading their homes, but unfortunately only those cartels themselves have that power.

tl;dr - There is a legitimate use for assault weapons in self-defense.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The legislation is probably just going to take away assault rifles, not things like handguns. I mean really, who the hell needs an assault rifle lying around in the garage in case the government turn against "us"?

You may laugh, but this is an incomplete list from last century of when the government turned against we the people;

Turkey/Ottoman Empire
China
Russia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Germany
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Argentina
Chile
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Romania
Greece
*America - the KKK pushed for gun control at its height, no prizes for guessing why.

...that's just a short list of countries where the government did turn against the people or a proportion of the people - and in many and most cases, removed gun rights for either everybody or a group such as the Jewish people.

I can't stand this attitude that a) it's never going to happen here, I mean this is Britain right? a prosperous nation in Europe? look at the list, some of the worst examples of tyranny took place in Europe - not once but twice in some cases and it's all happened in the lifetime of our grandparents. b) but this is a different century, it's all different now - why do you think Libyan and Syrian rebels begged for weapon supplies? because the Assad family and Gaddafi had restricted back gun rights.

I'd also add on to that, that most shootings in the United States are done via handguns and not assault rifles, as Ben Shapiro points out here...

I see pros and cons for both sides of the arguments of whether a country should relax its guns laws or not but I just keep asking myself whether I would feel safer in a country where guns are totally illegal and clamped down on (UK) or whether I'd feel safer in a country where people are allowed guns to defend themselves. It's like going out with a knife: the person who is most likely to get stabbed is yourself.

May have gone off topic slightly & I apologise

The chances of being gunned down are so ridiculously small it's statistically absurd that we're even having this debate about 'saving lives' - and on crime statistics, the figures can tell us anything we want - eg; that while gun crime may be high in the United States, as a result it has lower violent crime rates than the UK - and so on and so forth.

I commend @JoeyK.; for two fantastic posts, +rep

All of the quoted examples involve guns - this is what he is attempting to eliminate.

Genocide and tyranny also involves guns, see various examples above.

[Kardan]

You're right, I misquoted Wiki myself - the UK does have only 1.2 per 100k, my apologies - I'll use my horrible vision as an excuse . No, it would not remove the right to non 'assault' weapons, but I see this as a dangerous first step to even more restrictive laws.

The simple fact is that when the US was founded, the Bill of Rights was to serve as a basic guarantee of what each American citizen has a right to, and I don't believe that we should pass further laws to continually limit what that means, whether it's deciding what is 'hate speech', what guns you can or cannot own, who has a right to a trial by jury, and in the last few years almost all of these rights have been narrowed down, something that really disturbs me. I'm just tired of living in a country that is supposed to be 'free' when our rights are constantly reduced over the years. Apparently these days you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you agree with the majority, which is exactly what we were trying to prevent.

I see what you mean on my comment on following the laws, but I stand by my argument that if criminals can obtain these weapons, we should as a people have a right to them ourselves to defend against that possibility. If a felon breaks into your house with a semi-automatic rifle and you have a little handgun, who has the upper hand? Yes, weapons are commonly used against those who wield them, which is why it should be required to take a training course on how to use any weapon you purchase so you know how to use it properly. I personally carry a knife for work, but I would be more than capable of using it in self defense if necessary. I don't even own guns, outside of two hunting rifles i inherited from my father kept at my grandparents' home on the other side of the country.

Instead of banning these outright, I would prefer seeing stricter regulations on when and where you can carry specific weapons. For example, you can carry a handgun with you around town (barring schools, government buildings and the like), and you can carry a rifle or two with you if you're in a designated hunting area. However, if you own one of these 'assault weapons,' it should stay in your own home for self-defense purposes only.

Like I said - no legislation will EVER be able to stop people from doing this. The only thing it will accomplish is keeping the weapons in question from being used by law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves.

There's also the issue of border control between the US and Mexico - I don't think the UK has a neighbor so close that is entrenched in as much violence as we see here. If we outlaw these weapons, it becomes another good for them to bring over the border (whether to sell or to use), and will only cause the violence to spread further from the south.

My wife was born in Mexico, and still has family down there. It's absolutely terrible - there's news of more murders each day, and the normal citizens have no way of defending themselves other than to aid the cartels. Maybe if they could mow down a group of ten outlaws with a single weapon in a matter of seconds they'd think twice before invading their homes, but unfortunately only those cartels themselves have that power.

tl;dr - There is a legitimate use for assault weapons in self-defense.

This is a good post and I agree with pretty much everything you say. You will never be able to ban guns from America so the only thing that can be done is more restrictions. It's quite terrifying that people can just carry around handguns in the street, that seems a bit much for me.

You may laugh, but this is an incomplete list from last century of when the government turned against we the people;

Turkey/Ottoman Empire
China
Russia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Germany
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Argentina
Chile
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Romania
Greece
*America - the KKK pushed for gun control at its height, no prizes for guessing why.

...that's just a short list of countries where the government did turn against the people or a proportion of the people - and in many and most cases, removed gun rights for either everybody or a group such as the Jewish people.

I can't stand this attitude that a) it's never going to happen here, I mean this is Britain right? a prosperous nation in Europe? look at the list, some of the worst examples of tyranny took place in Europe - not once but twice in some cases and it's all happened in the lifetime of our grandparents. b) but this is a different century, it's all different now - why do you think Libyan and Syrian rebels begged for weapon supplies? because the Assad family and Gaddafi had restricted back gun rights.

I'd also add on to that, that most shootings in the United States are done via handguns and not assault rifles, as Ben Shapiro points out here...

The chances of being gunned down are so ridiculously small it's statistically absurd that we're even having this debate about 'saving lives' - and on crime statistics, the figures can tell us anything we want - eg; that while gun crime may be high in the United States, as a result it has lower violent crime rates than the UK - and so on and so forth.

I commend @JoeyK.; for two fantastic posts, +rep



Genocide and tyranny also involves guns, see various examples above.

What is a key difference in the whole gun debate is that America already have guns and the UK don't. If you were to ban guns in America, it simply wouldn't work. People wouldn't give up their right to self defence as I'm sure you know. I assume that the majority of people in the US that have a weapon know how to handle one etc.
If you were to bring guns into the UK, for which there is no logical reason (self defence from gun crime simply isn't an issue as it may be in the US), would just cause chaos. The majority of the British public don't know a single thing about guns and it'll just cause more problems than it would solve. Also the US may have a lower 'violent crime' rate than the UK, but each country has a different classification of 'violent crime' so the statistics aren't accurate (although I'm not saying that the US does have less crime than the UK - who knows).

[peteyt]

I don't see the big fuss. So he bans some guns and not all and wants better background checking - won't this benefit most. I mean fair enough people want to protect themselves but they can do this with a normal gun, why would they need an assault rifle. Better background checks is always a plus.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't see the big fuss. So he bans some guns and not all and wants better background checking - won't this benefit most. I mean fair enough people want to protect themselves but they can do this with a normal gun, why would they need an assault rifle. Better background checks is always a plus.

Most crimes are done with non-assault weapons, ie hand guns - and again, assault weapons are not automatic weapons as the media portrays. The American people aren't stupid, they know once a madman does exactly the same thing with a hand gun or a shot gun then you'll come for them aswell. A future President will stand there at a press conference with children (a sickening PR stunt if you ask me) and use exactly the same tactics as he is now - and you'll all fall for it, because what you really want in the end is all guns banned from the citizens and only the state to have guns.

No deal.

What is a key difference in the whole gun debate is that America already have guns and the UK don't. If you were to ban guns in America, it simply wouldn't work. People wouldn't give up their right to self defence as I'm sure you know. I assume that the majority of people in the US that have a weapon know how to handle one etc.

If you were to bring guns into the UK, for which there is no logical reason (self defence from gun crime simply isn't an issue as it may be in the US), would just cause chaos. The majority of the British public don't know a single thing about guns and it'll just cause more problems than it would solve. Also the US may have a lower 'violent crime' rate than the UK, but each country has a different classification of 'violent crime' so the statistics aren't accurate (although I'm not saying that the US does have less crime than the UK - who knows).

That's why licenses are used, that you can only purchase a gun if you know how to operate one and have been vetted. I would legalise them that in the knowledge that bad things will happen (as with anything) deaths from guns are so statistically small that it's not an issue which ought to triumph over our freedoms and liberties. As for the statistics, exactly - they can be twisted either way just as I could argue that due to lower certain crimes in the US that guns have prevented that .... again I don't think this all exactly matters as deaths from guns in weighing up benefits vs negatives are so small and insignifigant in the grand scheme of things.

But no it's not the most pressing issue, but i'd like to see a return in time to our pre-1920s laws which were perfectly fine.

[FiftyCal]

Now i have to do private backround checks when i perform a private sale? ugh... screw that, if i'm doing private sales with my friends i'm not backround checking them even if it's a felony

[JoeyK.]

Now i have to do private backround checks when i perform a private sale? ugh... screw that, if i'm doing private sales with my friends i'm not backround checking them even if it's a felony

Then you'll be pretty sad when the weapon you sell is used in a crime and it wasn't transferred legally. Even if the weapon was used in self defense, they would check the license and see that it belongs to you. For a while now you have had to make sure that the person you're selling to can legally own a gun, that doesn't change - the only exception is antique weapons.

[Ardemax]

Was not expecting two essays haha

You're right, I misquoted Wiki myself - the UK does have only 1.2 per 100k, my apologies - I'll use my horrible vision as an excuse . No, it would not remove the right to non 'assault' weapons, but I see this as a dangerous first step to even more restrictive laws.

The simple fact is that when the US was founded, the Bill of Rights was to serve as a basic guarantee of what each American citizen has a right to, and I don't believe that we should pass further laws to continually limit what that means, whether it's deciding what is 'hate speech', what guns you can or cannot own, who has a right to a trial by jury, and in the last few years almost all of these rights have been narrowed down, something that really disturbs me. I'm just tired of living in a country that is supposed to be 'free' when our rights are constantly reduced over the years. Apparently these days you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you agree with the majority, which is exactly what we were trying to prevent.

I understand that all Americans feel entitled to freedom by the Bill of Rights and I respect that Bill's morals (it's a great starting point to build a nation under). However, I don't think that they should be left unchanged for 250 or so years. So much can change in that amount of time and it can make the Bill look outdated (there weren't mass shootings of schoolchildren or of people in general when the Bill was in it's early years for example).

I see what you mean on my comment on following the laws, but I stand by my argument that if criminals can obtain these weapons, we should as a people have a right to them ourselves to defend against that possibility. If a felon breaks into your house with a semi-automatic rifle and you have a little handgun, who has the upper hand? Yes, weapons are commonly used against those who wield them, which is why it should be required to take a training course on how to use any weapon you purchase so you know how to use it properly. I personally carry a knife for work, but I would be more than capable of using it in self defense if necessary. I don't even own guns, outside of two hunting rifles i inherited from my father kept at my grandparents' home on the other side of the country.

Then there's not a lot you can do. Even if you had an assault rifle to hand who's to say the felon isn't an ex-serviceman with pinpoint accuracy? Besides one precise shot with a handgun will kill someone just as fast as assault rifle bullets.

Instead of banning these outright, I would prefer seeing stricter regulations on when and where you can carry specific weapons. For example, you can carry a handgun with you around town (barring schools, government buildings and the like), and you can carry a rifle or two with you if you're in a designated hunting area. However, if you own one of these 'assault weapons,' it should stay in your own home for self-defense purposes only.

I totally agree about the stricter regulations, though I still can't understand why people feel the need to have an assault rifle in case of an emergency?

Like I said - no legislation will EVER be able to stop people from doing this. The only thing it will accomplish is keeping the weapons in question from being used by law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves.

There's also the issue of border control between the US and Mexico - I don't think the UK has a neighbor so close that is entrenched in as much violence as we see here. If we outlaw these weapons, it becomes another good for them to bring over the border (whether to sell or to use), and will only cause the violence to spread further from the south.

My wife was born in Mexico, and still has family down there. It's absolutely terrible - there's news of more murders each day, and the normal citizens have no way of defending themselves other than to aid the cartels. Maybe if they could mow down a group of ten outlaws with a single weapon in a matter of seconds they'd think twice before invading their homes, but unfortunately only those cartels themselves have that power.

That is certainly horrible to hear about what your wife's family has to see on a daily basis but what happened to the police? Shouldn't they be keeping order?

Also I'm not too convinced that adding more guns into circulation will reduce gun crime.

You may laugh, but this is an incomplete list from last century of when the government turned against we the people;

Turkey/Ottoman Empire
China
Russia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Germany
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Argentina
Chile
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Romania
Greece
*America - the KKK pushed for gun control at its height, no prizes for guessing why.

I was being US specific or relating to a more "stable" government (if you believe one exists). I don't see how the KKK pushing for gun control is a threat that fills people with so much fear that they need to board their windows and defend themselves with whatever is necessary?

May be being stupid here, but when has the US government turned against its people?

I can't stand this attitude that a) it's never going to happen here, I mean this is Britain right? a prosperous nation in Europe? look at the list, some of the worst examples of tyranny took place in Europe - not once but twice in some cases and it's all happened in the lifetime of our grandparents. b) but this is a different century, it's all different now - why do you think Libyan and Syrian rebels begged for weapon supplies? because the Assad family and Gaddafi had restricted back gun rights.

The chances of being gunned down are so ridiculously small it's statistically absurd that we're even having this debate about 'saving lives' - and on crime statistics, the figures can tell us anything we want - eg; that while gun crime may be high in the United States, as a result it has lower violent crime rates than the UK - and so on and so forth.

In your point about something like this ever happening in Britain I'd say that we have been such a stable country throughout history that I just can't see anything like that happening here. You mention that tyranny happened in countries in Europe. Well yes. Italy and Germany weren't exactly renowned for their stable leadership at the start of the 20th century.

But times are different now, do you honestly believe that a dictator could ever come to power in Britain and oppress his people like the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? I don't believe so and that's why I feel Britain will never have this problem.

[Chippiewill]

Here is an incomplete list of potential national tragedies that were prevented thanks to an armed populace. I bet you didn't hear about any of these stories on the national news.

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape.
Wikipedia Article, fully cited. Not what I would call 'halted'