Why can’t America ban automatic weapons?

[MaryPoppinsPenguins]

I don’t get it. I honestly don’t. After Sandy Hook that should have been enough... statistics speak for themselves.

Why? What don’t I get?

In the US, you are allowed to shoot and kill an intruder into your property, though, @TheDowagerCuntess it's a key difference between the US and the UK. It's all tied in with their 'right to bear arms'. The Constitution was written in very different times, when you couldn't survive without a gun.

Thanks @Lizzie48 - so if you shoot and kill, you walk free?!

Isn't that some wide open scope right there for abuse, a la Oscar Pistorius...?

Obviously I realise that was a different country, but the principle, I mean.

You would not necessarily be charged or even convicted of manslaughter in the UK if you shot and killed an intruder. The law recognises a right to self defence, and also recognises that when you are terrified you don't think straight and can't carefully weigh up what would be a proportionate response. There would obviously be questions about why you had a weapon available, but that's a different issue.

This article from the NYT was published in November last year but it's quite a good round up of research done.

<a class="break-all" href="//[[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?referer=mobile.nytimes.com/search/What%20explains%20mass%20shootings" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?referer=mobile.nytimes.com/search/What%20explains%20mass%20shootings]What Explains Mass Shootings]

An interesting read.

Yes, it is open to abuse. But in Oscar Pistorius’s case, he didn’t shoot an intruder, he shot his girlfriend. He didn’t convince a jury of his defence so he was found guilty of murder. So in the US, he would have been found guilty of murder, I think.

Possibly 2nd degree murder, as it wasn’t premeditated, or manslaughter maybe, if the jury were convinced that he genuinely believed he was shooting an intruder. It always sounded far-fetched to me, though, as she was on the toilet, so why wouldn’t he guess that the person in the toilet was his partner??

So I doubt he would have walked away from it.

It would depend on the circumstances in the UK. Remember the case of John Martin (I believe that was his name) who shot an intruder as he was running away. He was eventually found guilty of manslaughter, I believe, but it caused a lot of controversy.

It's all about a proportionate response, how a reasonable person would respond in the given circumstances. There was an attempt to change the law on this at the time, as I recall, but I don't think it happened.

Merrymouse another difference is that gun control was not seen as a party issue in the UK, therefore there was no move to repeal the laws once the opposing party got into government. It's pretty obvious that Donald Trump's main motivation is to reverse any changes Barack Obama made ... just because, really. I don't think we get quite the same level of childish tit for tat in our system.

TheDowagerCuntess

Each state is different, but if someone enters my house I am allowed to shoot them to stop the threat. I will not be prosecuted.

I can’t just shoot them while they stand in my garden, the intruder would have to follow me into my home.

*The shootings in Cumbria could have been a lot worse. The gunman only had access to shot guns, which are much slower and less destructive than the semi-automatic weapons used by the shooter in Florida. The first three victims were known to the shooter. Nine were shot at random in various locations.

What is different here is the lack of semi-automatic weapons, which allow people to walk in to large crowds and mow down large numbers all at once.*

I don't see a great deal of difference. He went on a rampage over a prolonged period and whether he killed one by one or en masse, the net result was carnage. It could have been a lot worse with just his shotgun too. The banning of semi automatics was of no consequence in this case. The banning of shotguns might have been.
We aren't immune to another Dunblane, but I feel we've reduced the risk. We could probably reduce it further with a complete ban on firearms, but our gun owners will lobby against that in the UK.

The fact a rifle or handgun is semi automatic doesn’t really have any effect. What does have an effect is the magazine capacity. In the UK a semi automatic shotgun is legal, but you are limited to 2 rounds in the magazine.

My hunting rifle has a maximum capacity of 5 rounds. A AR-15 typically has a 20 round magazine.

Soup your link doesn’t work

@kursk.

A semi automatic shotgun on a section 2 licence is limited to 2 on the mag, 1 in the chamber.

Anything over is held on a section 1 firearms license, but still easily enough to get - if you can show you need one.

Semi automatic rifles are limited to .22lr , but no limit to capacity.

Hmmm. Link works for me. I will try again.

<a class="break-all" href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?referer=www.nytimes.com/search/Mass%20shootings/best/20171101/20171231" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?referer=www.nytimes.com/search/Mass%20shootings/best/20171101/20171231

Maybe its because I'm on my phone so it's a link to the mobile site?

Thanks for that link, soupforbrains. Pretty good and shocking article.

"More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence "

Semi automatic rifles are limited to .22lr , but no limit to capacity.

That’s interesting so a British gun owner could still cause a lot of deaths, .22 is still a pretty lethal round.

According to the news the Florida Gun Show went ahead just 3 days after the school shooting.....I am gobsmacked, not sure that there is a word to describe how utterly horrendous this is. It's like a kick in the teeth to all those grieving parents/sisters/brothers/aunts/uncles/granparents/friends. But hey according to reports there was a great range of guns to choose from so who cares about 15 dead kids!

Soup thanks

So basically more guns more shootings more deaths

Yemen has more guns than US and has more gun killings

Kazz they did the same after Columbine and Flint. Seems to be a tactic to grab the opportunity to sell to all those who are panicking

I live near Aldershot and work in Reading, I’ve never been attacked, mugged or felt any need to carry a weapon to protect myself and nor have any of my extended family.

American white right wing NRA is literally waging a war on the more liberal left wing youth. They want the either dead or scared enough to buy into the needing a gun to walk down the street nonsense. Their whole society is in danger because of a few hundred men needing a gun to feel like a man.

@Rino - I just can't wrap my head round how callus this is. They just don't care, and as a parent I find it really hard to accept that these people think guns are more important.

if Mass shooting keep happening and deaths occurring, if the nationals of a country don’t take measures to prevent the shootings, look to other countries to see how they manage to keep gun deaths low - then it would appear they are not concerned enough to prevent the killings by shootings

This Twitter thread is encouraging: twitter.com/showupforthis/status/964361194894106624

How awful must it be to be a child/teenager living in a country where a large proportion of the government & population don't give a sh*t about you.