Personalisation…no reality!
Unrestricted gun ownership puts a simpler method of killing into the hands of loon’s, not having a gun wouldn’t make them less likely to murder, just makes them less likely to murder so many people at one time. America is an unrestricted capitalist country, built by enterprising folk with no morals or overlying concerns for others. Quite happy to kill all and sundry simply to make a buck. Hasn’t changed much since the revolution, still all based around money.
1 Like
There is a lot that’s based around money and not only in the USA. As this is a discussion about guns I won’t go down the road of giving details of the food industry in Europe and their making big bucks by using chemicals that replace meat in food products that caters for the masses. What are the long term potential health issues and deaths from this ?
Your first sentence is accurate Trev, the rest is tosh as the mass shootings have absoultely nothing to do with ‘making a buck’.
Oh sorry, didn’t realise Armament’s companies were charities, didn’t realise that the gun lobby was organised by a small group of private citizens worried about their rights. The armaments industry in the USA is worth an absolute fortune, armaments companies make a fortune out of small arms which they flog all and sundry, and someone wants to tell me its nothing whatsoever to do with making a buck. Unbelievable. My daughter studied the history of America as part of her degree course, and its basically been about making a buck from day one. Government’s since the civil war have had plenty of opportunities to bring in proper gun controls but for some unknown reason have always chosen not to do so. 78% of American adults do not own a gun, so logic dictates that drastic reform of gun laws wouldn’t be a major problem.
1 Like
The issue of guns in the USA is a hugely complex one with many different aspects that go to the very core of American society, some of which are as follows:-
Firstly the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constition. I use the word ‘enshrined’ very deliberately as to most Americans the Constitution is something to be protected as being the very source of Americanism. Amending the Constitution is something which is very difficult indeed to do, as not only does it require the consent of Congress in DC, but it also needs the consent of all the individual state legislatures ---- all 50 of them !
Next there comes the problem of the average American’s perception of the ability of the gov’t (both state and federal) to protect them. Basically they often do not have any such faith. They may live in a rural area where the nearest police officer is miles away, or alternatively in an urban conurbation where there are so many different police authorities operating in close proximity that no-one seems to know who is responsible for what when it comes to an emergency. [College Park, Maryland, has 7 different police authorities whose vehicles can regularly be seen on Route US1, but it still takes 13 minutes for an officer to arrive at a reported armed robbery in progress on that very road for example.]
So if you live in a situation where you feel vulnerable, well perhaps you might just wish for a bit of personal / family protection.
Next, one has to accept that the majority of gun owning citizens never commit a crime with their weapon, and many never take the weapon out of their home.
The problem comes with the ease with which weapons can be obtained by those people who are not suitable people to possess a gun. The anonymity of the internet aids this process and that is a huge problem. Whilst firearms can be easily bought and sold with a simple click of a mouse there is little point in advocating a tightening of other gun laws that would simply have no bearing at all on the criminal use of weapons.
So how are decent folks to react to a situation like this. Well those Americans with views similar to those of both Ira and my good lady wife (and also many other Americans I know) can campaign quietly through appropriate chanels to change things for the better without actually threatening the rights conferred under the Constitution which is a total non-starter.
Those of us who are not American can decide if we wish to be visitors to that country or not, and if we do go there, to be aware of how we should behave for our own safety in a society where firearms are so prevalent. [For example: If stopped whilst driving by the police DO NOT get out of the car, but wind down the window and KEEP BOTH HANDS visible on the top part of the steering wheel.]
Lastly I’d just like to say that the vast majority of Americans that I have met are decent law-abiding, and very friendly people, and it really is a shame that the quality of the society from which they come is undermined by the actions of the criminal few, be they mentally ill or not. Armed mentally disturbed people are present in every society [A Police Officer unlawfully shot and killed 3 people near Paris only the other day during a personal dispute], and the USA is bound to have a fair number of such people amongst it’s population of some 323 million people.
So can we try not to tar all Americans with the same brush folks.
1 Like
…Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on “Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California,” many straw purchases are conducted in an openly “suggestive” manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun…The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel’s own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that’s where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
The Cluny Gendarmerie shot and killed our neighbour in May whilst searching for him as he had been identified at being risk of suicide!
They shot at him in his car when he drove past him and he was hit three times.
OK, so the “right to bear arms” is enshrined in the US constitution, but is there, constitutionally speaking, any difference between a single shot hand gun, sporting rifle or shotgun and military grade fully automatic assault weapons?
The Second Amendment states 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.
Somewhere along the line Gun-mafia managed to change that not only National Guard would have the rights to bear arms to todays mess.
Not sure if it is true that there’s a discussion that mentally ill people need to be able to protect them with guns., but it would not surprise me.
Without guns there is much less chance of mass shooting…
Yes people can still kill but not in Butch Cassidy style…six or more within
a few mins.
The words of Ira referring to aids and pneumonia…you are slightly wrong there as pneumonia
can kill even if the aids virus is not present! This is nothing to do with Trump.
Trump does not have the gift of compassion and understanding…among many other
qualities which make a good leader.
It is not all about being “butch” which makes a leader!
Its got nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution, its all down to who shouts the loudest and who has the most cash. Its not possible to bring in a blanket ban on gun ownership, but it is quite simple to bring in far stricter controls on the type of firearms one can own, the amount and type of ammunition one can own and far stricter controls on firearms licensing. Create a system where you allow people to own a weapon but make it so difficult that people just can’t be bothered. With all this stuff its not rocket science.
Trump is a result of the US society.
So Boris, May and Co are a product of UK…
yes guesse that they were " made in England at the greedy shop"
If things are to change, the Supreme Court of the United States would have to reverse its ruling that individual ownership of a firearm is a Constitutionally protected, almost unbridled right. That won’t happen for some years the way that the Court is currently constituted. Justices are appointed for life and those with a pro-gun view are in the majority and will be for some time to come. There is an alternative judicial view, that the Second Amendment was meant to keep the federal government from preventing a state government from forming a militia. At the time, the question of a standing federal army and states’ rights were hot button issues. Also, the language ‘keep and bear arms’ had a different meaning then that it does now. So a change in the Court could reasonably change the ability of the federal government and/or the states to regulate firearm ownership much more strictly. Then it would be up to legislatures at the federal and the state level to enact more restrictive laws. And that’s where money in politics rears its ugly head. So the short answer to your question is that there’s not a great deal of hope that things will change any time soon. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep raising our voices at every opportunity.
I don’t know if UK has such a excellent solution to congressional ’ problems’ as US has:
Just a quick point of fact. Amending the American Constitution does not require the approval of all 50 states.I would add that the rights conferred under the Constitution are constantly under review by the Supreme Court. What the Court giveth, the Court can take away. The right of individuals to own a handgun is not enshrined in the Constitution, for instance. It’s the result of a Supreme Court decision.
I get that it’s not a perfect analogy. My point was simply that Trump may be a personification, a result. But he’s not the cause. The cause is much more complex than one man.
1 Like
But he is no help…Not to America.
Thanks for clarifying that Ira. Indeed it is only 38 out of the 50 whose consent is required.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). Source: Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives
Regarding your comment that The right of individuals to own a handgun is not enshrined in the Constitution, … surely such a weapon is included in the term ‘arms’ as mentioned in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
As the term ‘arms’ does not seem to have been defined (at least not in the said amendment anyway) presumably the 2nd Amendment right also extends to such things as knives, cudgels, hatchets, pikes, or indeed any other weapon of offence.