US rejects gun control measures on assault rifles

[geared]

I agree, there's alot of people who should be banned from owning guns.

 

I seem to remember a previous loophole was the secondhand market, which is kinda obvious I guess.

They don't register guns like we do cars, and not historic ones either so there is unregulated trade in second hand weapons.

 

The knub of the problem is there are so many guns in the country that no-one knows who has what because there's been decades of uncontrolled sales of the things.

[Harleyman]

I agree, there's alot of people who should be banned from owning guns.

 

I seem to remember a previous loophole was the secondhand market, which is kinda obvious I guess.

They don't register guns like we do cars, and not historic ones either so there is unregulated trade in second hand weapons.

 

The knub of the problem is there are so many guns in the country that no-one knows who has what because there's been decades of uncontrolled sales of the things.

 

Los Angeles County banned gun shows because it was found that background checks were not done and or guns not properly registered.

 

Too bad in one way because there were many other interesting things on dispaly at these shows other than just guns.

 

There are estimated to be around 85 million firearms of all types out there but the saving grace is that the great majority of the owners are law abiding level headed people. Sad to say on the other hand that the tragedy is that

there will alwys be the odd individual, the disaffected loner who will try to shoot people which always makes headlines and starts the whole controversy of gun ownership occur again.

 

Meanwhile in Chicago there are shootings between gang members on a regular basis but unless a child or someone else who was not involved is killed it never makes the news

[onewheeldave]

A concealed hand gun might not be much help against an assault rifle though, so I think that if we adapted your approach we'd have to arm the school quite heavily. Maybe machine gun nests and bunkers may be more appropriate?

 

A hand gun could be very useful against someone carrying an assault rifle, in that it can be used to shoot the person.

 

There's no doubt whatsoever that a handgun is far more help than no gun whatsoever.

 

Especially if, at the school, there are several teachers/staff with concealed carry permits.

 

As I said before, those who commit these massacres are drawn to schools because they know for sure they will not be shot until they've had a good 20 minutes of killing defenseless children.

 

Once a few such attempts are cut short by the assailant being promptly gunned down, schools will cease to be such an easy target.

 

Maybe machine gun nests and bunkers may be more appropriate?

I'm not getting involved in your strawman argument.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 20:30 ----------

 

What is this 'necessary training to have a concealed carry permit?' - In this state, AFAIK, there is no such 'necessary training'.

 

It varies from state to state

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Training_requirements

 

What makes you think that a teacher with a handgun is necessarily going to be more of an asset than a liability? - Anybody in front of the barrel of that handgun (in an arc extending 90' either side of straight ahead) is, arguably, at risk from that handgun.

 

Because there's a good chance that the teacher with a concealed carry permit would be a gun enthusiast and more than capable of using his/her weapon responsibly and effectively.

 

Also, because the alternative is to let a psycho with an assualt rifle rampage through a school full of children with nothing to hinder him until the police arrive 20 minutes later.

 

 

 

 

So they want to use armed teachers? How much are they going to spend training (and periodically re-qualifying) those teachers and how much are they going to pay them for their second job as soldiers?

No ones suggesting training teachers or paying them extra to carry guns. The suggestion is that teachers who already, for reasons of their own, have a concealed carry permit, can continue to carry their weapon just as they do in the rest of the daily life, if they wish. And, I think it's a safe assumption that most people who have concealed carry permits, who habitually carry a weapon, and, who also happen to be teachers, given a choice, would likely prefer to carry a gun in school, rather than be forced to not do so. Especially with schools in the US being such a popular target for psychos with assault rifles.

[alchresearch]

Let them bear arms that existed when the Second Amendment was passed in 1791, ie. flintlock rifles.

 

Or this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

[llamatron]

It's pretty irrelevant to preventing school massacres. Criminals will get assualt rifles (or equivalent killing devices) regardless of whether they are illegal or not, and, schools will remain a prime choice for massacres while ever guns are not permitted in schools, as the perpetrators of such acts will know full well that they can kill at will for a good 20 minutes before armed police arrive to make them stop.

 

I think you are wrong. Even in America they don't let school kids buy assault rifles but they can get them from family members which is mental. Make them less accessible and children won't be able to get them.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2013 at 10:42 ----------

 

A concealed hand gun might not be much help against an assault rifle though, so I think that if we adapted your approach we'd have to arm the school quite heavily. Maybe machine gun nests and bunkers may be more appropriate?

 

they should arm 6 year olds with assault weapons!

 

Anyone seen bowling for columbine? The Southpark creators cartoon reminds of the idea that they should arm teachers to deal with the threat:loopy:

 

[Bargepole23]

A hand gun could be very useful against someone carrying an assault rifle, in that it can be used to shoot the person.

 

There's no doubt whatsoever that a handgun is far more help than no gun whatsoever.

 

Especially if, at the school, there are several teachers/staff with concealed carry permits.

 

As I said before, those who commit these massacres are drawn to schools because they know for sure they will not be shot until they've had a good 20 minutes of killing defenseless children.

 

Once a few such attempts are cut short by the assailant being promptly gunned down, schools will cease to be such an easy target.

 

I'm not getting involved in your strawman argument.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 20:30 ----------

 

 

It varies from state to state

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Training_requirements

 

 

 

Because there's a good chance that the teacher with a concealed carry permit would be a gun enthusiast and more than capable of using his/her weapon responsibly and effectively.

 

Also, because the alternative is to let a psycho with an assualt rifle rampage through a school full of children with nothing to hinder him until the police arrive 20 minutes later.

 

 

 

 

No ones suggesting training teachers or paying them extra to carry guns. The suggestion is that teachers who already, for reasons of their own, have a concealed carry permit, can continue to carry their weapon just as they do in the rest of the daily life, if they wish. And, I think it's a safe assumption that most people who have concealed carry permits, who habitually carry a weapon, and, who also happen to be teachers, given a choice, would likely prefer to carry a gun in school, rather than be forced to not do so. Especially with schools in the US being such a popular target for psychos with assault rifles.

 

Are you suggesting they shouldn't be trained, despite not requiring training to obtain the permit for a concealed weapon in the first place?

 

Quite happy to not live in the US.

[llamatron]

I suppose that is the point. There is no point banning anything that is so easy to smuggle across the borders. It simply means that only the criminals have them.

 

but if it significantly reduces the number in circulation (which it would) then there is a point.

[alchresearch]

In this country we banned handguns following a school massacre, even those that were legally held had to be handed in. I know a pistol owner who handed his in, said there were folk in tears at the police station when handing their weapons over.

 

I was present at the handing in procedure. You had a pre-set appointment time that you had to attend. You were directed inside the underground car park at Snig Hill and had guns pointed at you by armed police at all times.

 

It was handled in such a controlled way that you couldn't see others.

[Rupert_Baehr]

but if it significantly reduces the number in circulation (which it would) then there is a point.

 

But the point is - as has been explained before - it would not reduce significantly the number in circulation. It would prevent new assault weapons from being sold (legally) and might prevent existing assault rifles from being re-sold but would have no effect on those which were already owned by people and which were not offered for sale.

 

The lack of either federal or state databases makes it impossible to say who was got what. There are dealers who comply strictly with the laws relating to background checks, but there are others who do not and private sellers are under no obligation to notify anybody of a transfer.

[johncocker]

If you look at gun laws for different states in the U.S, it becomes clear that cultural factors are more important than gun legality as far as gun death rates. New Hampshire has a low gun death rate and very lax gun laws. New Hampshire has a lower gun death rate than Luxembourg, Italy, Belgium or Switzerland. DC has an astronomical gun death rate and the strictest gun laws in the country.

For the 39 states where it is mandatory to issue concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens requesting them (or where no permit is required), the gun death rates are all over the place and include some of the highest and the lowest rates.

 

 

its worth considering who is doing the killing and who are they killing. In the US and in the UK most people are killed by someone they know. These random mass killings, horrific as they are aren't really significant to the murder rate, they just get people worked up on the subject.

The reality is that most murders are committed by people who know each other and usually among the 'criminal element'

Edited March 22, 2013 by johncocker