What the hell? Shooting in US centre for disabled people.

[BertieBotts]

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34987697

This is sickening. Any shooting is but this has really upset me for some reason. :(

chilled
Make it illegal across the entire US and they will get them from somewhere else.
Utter bilge.
Smuggling guns in across Trump's Mexico wall

Making guns illegal in Australia and the UK has not led to a rash of smuggling.

There are lots of Americans who would refuse to comply with a gun amnesty,
Piffle.
If the choice is jail (and thus losing your job, the vote and a few other niceties)
or taking the cash for your gun
people will take the cash

New York Times today
www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html

talkinpeace, if you want people to give up their personal protection, you have to be prepared to offer more them equal protection in return. Simply making wild guarantees that you know you have no power to make or enforce and saying "utter bilge" or "piffle" to anyone who calls you out on your inability to make such a claim is not enough. You say that mass shootings would cease. Explain to me how you feel you can completely guarantee that there will never be a mass shooting again if law abiding Americans hand in our guns? That's what you've promised you can deliver, talk me through how you ensure it.

I also think you severely underestimate the strength of feeling some people have towards our 2nd Amendment. Some would rather die than give up their guns, and would be willing to fight off confiscation. If officers started being killed by the people they were sent to get guns from, it would put the government in a no win situation. Do they follow the same path as Bashar Assad and Colonel Qadaffi - Ordering the military and the police to start killing civilians who are resisting, or do they back down on the confiscation? Both would cause them to instantly lose any legitimacy as a government, which is why I feel so confident they won't do that.

I can appreciate that you have different thoughts on this but our country sees guns as needed for protection, both from other criminals, and as protection against a tyrannical government. People say that's not relevant any more, but I don't agree with this. Do you believe that governments are incapable of becoming tyrants these days? If so I would say to look at North Korea, at Syria, and at Libya and you'll see why some of us sleep safer knowing that the 2nd Amendment acts as a sort of safety balance on any government trying to mess us about too much. The last time a government tried to take our guns, it didn't work out too well for them, in fact it's the reason that we are a different country than you right now.

chilled
I also think you severely underestimate the strength of feeling some people have towards our 2nd Amendment.
I also know that most gun nuts do not understand the purpose of the 2nd
amendment

if you want people to give up their personal protection
What have semi automatic weapons got to do with protection?

Have you read the NY Times editorial ?
Have you not paid attention to what happened in Australia?

The last time a government tried to take our guns, it didn't work out too well for them, in fact it's the reason that we are a different country than you right now.
Sorry?
The revolution/war of independence had nothing to do with Gun control.
I've learned my history on both sides of the pond.
You appear to have learned neither.

talkinpeace hehe at "gun nuts". You asked asking me what have semi automatic weapons got to do with protection? Like any weapons, they give you a chance at protecting yourself, allowing you to bring greater force to the fight than merely using your hands and feet. You said the revolutionary war had nothing to do with gun control. I'm not sure how I respond to that, I can only say that I guess you were reading about the war of independence of a different country.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

This is what you cannot, and will not ever, be able to get the pro-gun lobby to acknowledge. And that lack of acknowledgement (and NRA political clout) is why the US will (most likely) never go gun free. And I'll state again, before being accused of being a 'bleeding heart, gun hating liberal' that I don't disapprove of firearms on principle. It is true that 'guns don't kill people'. But people with guns DO kill people. And the fact that so many people cannot be responsible gun owners and the increase in gun crime means that we should not be a nation that allows firearms.

And, btw, although a PP has made a statement about California, despite having strict laws, having a large number of gun related crimes you can see in the link that we are pretty low on the overall scale of gun crime in the US. So strict gun laws do work. The problem with CA is that a couple of our neighboring states do NOT have strict laws and geographically speaking it's very easy to bring them in.

So the chart at point #2 directly contradicts what Chilled has been telling us about California .....

chilled
I wasn't talking about this specific shooting. Never mind this one, what about the 352 other mass shootings that have happened so far this year, across the US? What about the thousands of other murders that have been comitted with guns this year. How can you believe the guns are protecting people and preventing crime?

I'm grateful that chilledwarmth is posting in a gentle considered way, unlike the last pro-gun poster whose name escapes me (unless it's the same person trying a different approach).

But 'That's a very powerful incentive for everyone not to try anything stupid' - this is demonstrably untrue.

Separately from the school shootings, the number of gun suicides in the US is what stays with me, partly because it is something often dismissed by pro-gun posters on internet forums - the assumption being that once someone is suicidal, the method they use is irrelevant. But that's not true. Suicidal thoughts are a relatively normal part of being human and many people will have them at some point. Ready access to a lethal weapon will mean that far more people will successfully kill themselves in those moments of suicidal feeling. Without that access, most people will find their lives improving and will get to a better place. The amount of pain and trauma caused in the lives of those who love someone who dies by suicide is absolutely enormous.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america
More than 20,000 Americans shoot themselves to death every year

access to guns did not make them safer

Make it illegal across the entire US and they will get them from somewhere else.You can't say that "the mass shootings would cease" because you don't have the power to enforce a guarantee, so you aren't in a position to make it.
Chilled... how do we manage it then? We make carrying weapons illegal and we don't get shedloads of people smuggling guns in cars through the Channel Tunnel. We do it. It works.

Most that I know work under the assumption of "I probably won't get attacked but if I do, I've got something to defend myself" which in my opinion is a common sense, and balanced approach. My big point here is... because no one for the most part carries weapons, we don't feel the need to defend ourselves. To let everyone carry weapons means that I would feel the need, I would be nervous. As it is now, I have never in all my life ever thought I need to defend myself with a weapon. There has never been a situation that has even had the capacity to escalate to violence because we over here just do not work like that. My gun would be useless and dusty because I've never thought ever I would need anything to defend myself with and I really haven't led a sheltered life.

I have to say I am confused about your comments to do with defending yourself against a tyrannical Government, is that the way most Americans think?? We might not always like the particular Government in power over here but we never feel the need to sleep with a weapon under our pillow in case they overstep the mark in some way. I am gobsmacked by this mode of thinking.

I would like to think that those in the US would start to talk, that someone somewhere could make a difference and I know that nothing can be done overnight because it is a mindset problem. Sod the 2nd Amendment or whatever it's called, think of lives, small children, mothers, brothers, fathers needlessly slaughtered. I don't understand and never ever will the need for war grade semi automatic weapons. There can be no excuse for this type of weapon and my sympathy runs out when anyone tries to defend the ownership of such a weapon. This will be outspoken of me to say but every time I see the mass grief after one of your mass shootings, I think to myself, will just one of you start to wake up and smell the coffee, will one of you think this isn't right, will there be somebody somewhere in that grand country of yours to start a movement to stop the wanton slaughter of innocent people.

talkiin Yep.

I expect chilled to say that Mother Jones is a 'liberal, anti-gun' organization. This is true, it is. But it is a respected organization that doesn't play 'funny' with the facts.

Separately from the school shootings, the number of gun suicides in the US is what stays with me, partly because it is something often dismissed by pro-gun posters on internet forums - the assumption being that once someone is suicidal, the method they use is irrelevant. But that's not true. Suicidal thoughts are a relatively normal part of being human and many people will have them at some point. Ready access to a lethal weapon will mean that far more people will successfully kill themselves in those moments of suicidal feeling. Without that access, most people will find their lives improving and will get to a better place. The amount of pain and trauma caused in the lives of those who love someone who dies by suicide is absolutely enormous.

Annandale yes yes yes. This is such an important point that I make no apology for copying it above in full! I could not agree more. I don't want to go into this in detail but have experience of this and I dread to think what the rates of suicide would be in this country if weapons were available. Many who hesitate are worried about whether their choice of how to die will work and to have time on their side can save lives.

I'm not sure if it's been posted on this thread, but the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia. Well Regulated. So it sounds as if even our revered Founding Fathers were in favour of gun control.

The Second Amendment was written when there was no 'standing army' for the then new United States. It was necessary back then for the ordinary citizens to be able to gather and defend the new country. But we now have the National Guards (State Militias), Military Reserves, and our Armed Forces, so a 'citizen militia' is no longer necessary. The 2nd amendment is basically obsolete as far as the Founding Fathers intended it.

To some extent the 2nd Amendment is necessary, to theoretically prevent 'someone' from trying to disband the Guard, Forces, et al.

But the US Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as constituting a personal right, independent of the militia aspect. Of course, meaningful gun control laws can be enacted without violating the Second Amendment, but gun control laws as stringent as those existing in the UK could not be enacted without repeal of the Second Amendment, which will not happen.

but gun control laws as stringent as those existing in the UK could not be enacted without repeal of the Second Amendment, which will not happen.
Really?

UK citizens can get shotgun licences pretty easily : that would cover the 2nd

Seneca - Yes, but the SC is usually somewhat 'slanted' as far as conservative/liberal goes and historically that's been seen in their rulings. At the time of DC vs Heller, the court was overwhelmingly of a 'conservative' leaning.

But I agree, it'll never be repealed. But then again that's what they said about the 18th amendment.

I am a supporter of gun control and I do not think that Heller was a good decision (and it was 5-4). It also addressed handguns, as I recall, so that talkin's argument about shotguns does not answer the issue as far as current law goes.

It is possible that the Supreme Court in the future will decide cases that allow more restrictions, but the watershed was the decision that gun ownership is an individual right and that will be hard to backtrack from.

Since I'm not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional one, I honestly don't know if it's even possible to backtrack. I think that once the SC makes a ruling, it becomes the final written in stone interpretation of the applicable law based on their interpretation of the Constitution. I don't know if the SC has ever made a ruling that has been overturned or had a law reinterpreted by another SC decision based on a different case. But I think the only time another case would come before the SC is if a state tried to restrict firearms in either number or type (i.e. you can own NN handguns of XX type and/or NN long guns of XX type) or tried to restrict all ammo sales to state-run or regulated facilities. TBH, I'm not sure if that was already covered in Heller and cba to read it right now.

I agree, Heller was a poor decision, but again, not surprising based on the makeup of the SC at the time. At least states still have the right to determine the types of guns that are legal/illegal in their states.

It is possible to backtrack by specifically rejecting the holdings of earlier Supreme Court decisions, but the Court as an institution is very reluctant to do so for a variety of reasons. The most famous example is Brown v. Board of Education which held that segregation of schools is unconstitutional and thus overturned a much older decision that had upheld the separate but equal doctrine.

If future iterations of SCOTUS are inclined to uphold restrictions on gun ownership, they are likely to do it in ways that are at least somewhat consistent with Heller.

Thank you for the lesson!! You've whetted my curiosity. I'm off to learn more about our Supreme Court. I had no idea that B v BoE reversed a prior ruling!

seneca
TBH I do not think that the USA will ever back away from gun ownership is an individual right
even the most gun control parts of my family want that freedom.
BUT
The right to own a gun need not include all types of gun

to kill an intruder should not need more than two shots Woody Harrellson managed with Double Tap after all
so restrictions on military style weapons will not go near the 2nd while saving lives
there is also no need for people to own lots and lots of guns
www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cops-find-assault-rifle-arsenal-man-backseat-article-1.2455344

and with sensible licencing and registration and boundaries, the USA could save thousands of lives and billions of dollars without actually having to overturn anything at all

Personally, I favour

-Restrictions on types and number of guns allowed per household
-Permits for any and ALL types of firearms (not just handguns) with much more stringent background checks
-Broader restriction on who is allowed to own any types of firearms
-Legal age of ownership raised to 21 (at least)
-Control and registration for ALL ammo purchases
-Stiff penalties for those who do NOT store firearms properly
-Tax credit for one time purchase of certified gun safes
-Outlaw sales of guns by anyone other than a licensed firearms dealer with an actual storefront. (No more sales at 'gun shows')
-No online sales of firearms, ammo, or parts thereof.