Are gun laws U?

[Backwoodsgirl]

In light of recent attacks in NZ, the increase in knife and gun crime in the UK, shootings in the US and France. What do people think are reasonable options for weapons related laws?

It's clear that none on the current system around the world are perfect.

I am a Brit in the USA, and a gun owner, I also have a concealed carry permit. and I am interested to see what people see as reasonable.

I read what I thought was a good point about the difference between the UK and US views of guns

All very well, but the main point, is that it's impossible for any state - or indeed the federal government - to ban them. They can't even restrict them too much.

That's a really good point actually. Never thought of that point of difference before. For legally held firearms that seems to make sense to me. Gun 22 which someone mentioned up-thread is really worth a watch btw.

It was also a "fundamental part of US law" that a slave counts as three fifths of a person for the purpose of determining a state's total population for legislative representation.

The constitution is an imperfect and document that reflects the society in which it was drafted.

Nor do I think nut job survivalists with semi automatic weapons is what the framers has in mind when they referred to a "well regulated militia".

Of course it won't account for every weapon of this nature but it will account for a significant percentage. I've never understood why Americans are so keen to decry solutions like this, preferring to do nothing at all than accept solutions which may allow a minority of guns to "slip through the cracks".

Yep, I've always found that excuse particularly pathetic. Oh the process might be hard, so let's not even bother attempting it.

@PCohle - it is not for us to tell the US how to sort out its gun law mess. Likening it to slavery is a false analogy.

It was also a "fundamental part of US law" that a slave counts as three fifths of a person for the purpose of determining a state's total population for legislative representation. The constitution is an imperfect and document that reflects the society in which it was drafted.

But the US dumped slavery, and not guns. So changing the constitution is clearly (a) possible and (b) subject to priorities.

Which returns us to my doubtless offensive, but true observation that for all the handwringing, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the US is content with the situation as it is.

I'm not likening gun laws to slavery, I'm making the point that a) the constitution is a document which reflects the morals and conditions of the circumstances in which it was drafted; and b) it is demonstrably capable of amendment.

it is not for us to tell the US how to sort out its gun law mess.

The US already knows. Amend the constitution to remove or curtail the second amendment (I've always felt that the word "militia" was key ....) and then allow states to regulate as they see fit. Job done.

The US is perfectly capable of amending its constitution. Its gun laws are really none of our business.
Frankly, with the chaotic shitshow going on here at the moment, we are in no position to preach to anyone.

Frankly, with the chaotic shitshow going on here at the moment, we are in no position to preach to anyone.

At least we are a shitshow with shit weapons ....

I'm not sure posting about it on a UK parenting website is really "preaching" to the US electorate and political leadership tbh.

Nor do I think people should only express views on world news events that directly affect them. What do I think about the devastating cyclone affecting Mozambique and Zimbabwe? "Ooh dunno mate, none of my business, anyway I'm only allowed to worry about Brexit."

I take your point but slagging off another country's laws that you analyse through the prism of a uk experience isn't really achieving much. As for "you obviously don't care about the cyclone in Mozambique " wtf is that all about?

But yes we should slag off other countries laws if we don't agree with them.

Should no one criticise the death penalty in other countries? Should no one criticise torture then? Should no one criticise corruption in other countries?

Slag them off by all means but recognise that you are just playing into the hands of Tea Party idiots when you do so.

Also no one to critocise putins anti lgbt laws etc? No one to criticise maduros treatment of Venezuelans?

"The SOLE purpose of a gun is to kill. It is NOT a tool."

Of course it is a tool. You have obviously not seen the aftermath of a fox attack on new born lambs. How would you suggest foxes are controlled? Hunting them with dogs?

Nor is the SOLE purpose of a gun to kill. Shooting events at the Olympics would be carnage if they were. A great many people use guns for harmless sport: punching holes in bits of card or smashing clay discs.

I think you are missing my point. Other countries have shit ways of doing things. Last time I checked, US gun laws, while shit , are not the same as inhumane and undemocratic regimes in Russia (I used to live there so know what an undemocratic country looks like) or Saudi Arabia.

My point was that you very likely do care about the cyclone a great deal. Because most people care about tragedies in other countries (even if they don't directly affect them) and how those tragedies can be avoided in the future. Tragedies like the attack in New Zealand and school shootings in the US.

There have been 288 school shootings in the US since 2009. That seems pretty inhumane to me.

edition-m.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F

Look, I think US gun laws are shit. But to just assume they have them because they are shit kicking hill billies who want to kill babies is failing to understand their history and what it means to take their right to bear arms away. You don't get change to us gun laws by setting out your moral superiority.
I personally think they should have more background checks as a federal law a bare minimum. But I know that would piss off a lot of people. So I try to understand why.
Try it some time.
And no it is not the same as laws that allow stoning a woman to death for being raped.

Well no, but it's not a global competition of national inhumanity. Stoning women to death is shit, school shootings are shit. The fact that one exists doesn't make the other somehow ok.

I don't think it's Americans are "shit kicking hill billies who want to kill babies" , but I do think many of them are more concerned about their own desire to own weapons than the are about the very real risk that those weapons in the hands of bad actors will be used to kill children. If that makes me morally superior then so be it. New Zealander's seem to be coping just fine with having their right to possess certain specific types of firearms infringed for the public good.

If you acknowledge that US gun laws are shit why are you so defeatist about doing anything about it? Something being a bit difficult isn't a reason to just not bother.

What should I do about it? I know from watching a lot of US politics that lecturing them from abroad about how dreadful gun ownership is, fails on every level all the time.
There are some idiots that even think Sandy Hook was a fake.
It needs something more sophisticated than saying how horrible they all are.

”the main point, is that it's impossible for any state - or indeed the federal government - to ban them. They can't even restrict them too much.”

Of course they can. The right to bear arms is itself an amendment to the Constitution. Clearly it is absolutely perfectly possible to amend it again. The only reason it doesn’t happen is because there is not sufficient desire to do so. The number of innocent lives which would be saved is not sufficient motivation. There’s too much money floating around from people who like guns.

Yes as I've already said a mumsnet thread is obviously not going to change anything. Although nor do I think it is us "imposing our views and values" on anyone.

But I don't think the solution to that is to instead defend the perspective of American gun owners and claim it's a rational response to some kind of unique American historical experience.

The right to bear arms is itself an amendment to the Constitution. Clearly it is absolutely perfectly possible to amend it again.

(peeved ) Which I did then go on to point out .....

Yes as I've already said a mumsnet thread is obviously not going to change anything. Although nor do I think it is us "imposing our views and values" on anyone.

Worth a debate though, as every so often you get some whackjob in the UK that likes the idea of a free-for-all with guns and threads like this tend to keep them quiet ...