The recent shootings in Las Vegas brought the issue of gun ownership into focus again.   In your opinion is it time to further limit gun ownership in the US?

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

I have never been to the states. Not because of any objections, just that work took me to other places, so I am not so well informed as other members here about the life there. However, I see all these mass shootings, and particularly the last sad event in Vegas, and I wonder how an individual can own so many heavy duty firearms. I acknowledge the Constitution referring to the right to bear arms, but surely, that was written in the fledgling years of the country when it was a dangerous and lawless place to be, and defending your family and property was a necessity. Has that situation, and therefore, that part of the constitution been made mute by progress in civilisation ? 

It is waaaaaay past time to put heavy restrictions on guns, the number of guns and who can have them.

 

The US has seen several truly horrific mass shootings in the last few years, but each time nothing is done. The worst was the mass murder of those schoolchildren; 20 or so very young children (6/7/8 years old?) and no action to try to remedy the situation. It is disgusting and unbecoming in a civilized country.

 

I think it is wrong, but if people want to have a hand gun at home and perhaps a shot gun for hunting, fine. I don't see the need, but this is something important for some. However, I truly do not see the need for an AR 15 or a M16 or any other king of 'long gun''. It is barbaric and unnecessary. 

 

Reasonable background checks should be mandatory. People need a licence to drive a car, why not to own a gun? 

 

The US had gone mental with the second amendment.

 

It is time to try to undo some of the damage.

 

Outside of the military and police, firearms should be limited to women and castrati (oh, farmers may have a 12 bore shotgun to be kept in a locked cabinet).

Its the same as should Spain stop with the bull fighting.

It needs a mixture of option 2 and 3, but it doesn't matter what we think, the owners of semi-automatic military grade weapons in the USA are not ever ever ever going to give them up..ever ever.

Every pro gun argument has been shown to be utter rubbish yet people still use them constantly which suggests there will be no change. One of the most topical would be 'nukes don't kill people, people kill people'. To be perfectly honest, I'd rather argue with a Creationist.

In my job I dealt with 5 people that had killed. They all have nightmares, the good ones and the bad ones. Why do you want a gun? With lesser firearms in a country or state does the death rate by firearms reduce compared to countries that have restrictions?

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

In South Africa we are finding out, that criminals commit fewer crimes when shot.

Personal view, I would like to see more concealed carry guns, criminals would then have to deceide if the person they going to attack, will shoot back or not.

no.

 

Mandatory gun ownership (2 of) for every man, woman and child would lower gun crime... obviously.

 

Restrict the manufacture and sale of ammunition wouldn't work because people would simply club each other to death with empty revolvers.

35 minutes ago, wombat said:

no.

 

Which is outright lie

I still like Chris Rocks solution:

 

 

"Reap what you sow" comes to mind. It's a very strong gun culture in the US and the they have mass shootings, not hard to figure it out. And to all the pro gun people that say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", maybe in depth mental evaluations are needed before purchasing a firearm is allowed......since in your view people are the problem. 

Before anybody says anything; I'm an American that is neither pro or con guns; just against any kind of assault rifles that are only used for killing humans in masse.

40 minutes ago, notmyself said:

Mandatory gun ownership (2 of) for every man, woman and child would lower gun crime... obviously.

 

Restrict the manufacture and sale of ammunition wouldn't work because people would simply club each other to death with empty revolvers.

Oh dear, hand out more weapons. Really?

 

All countries with gun controls have seen immediate and drastic reductions in gun related deaths.

 

This makes for very sobering (and disturbing) reading http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

12,000 deaths and 25,000 injuries in 2017 alone YTD with year on year increases is unimaginable in any civilised country.

1 hour ago, Chris Lawrence said:

In my job I dealt with 5 people that had killed. They all have nightmares, the good ones and the bad ones. Why do you want a gun? With lesser firearms in a country or state does the death rate by firearms reduce compared to countries that have restrictions?

Check your stats.  More people are killed by KNIVES every year than guns.  Should we ban knives as well?  And we won't even talk about automobile deaths. 

1 minute ago, Just1Voice said:

Check your stats.  More people are killed by KNIVES every year than guns.  Should we ban knives as well?  And we won't even talk about automobile deaths. 

Stupid comment. The death rate by shootings in the USA is 4 times that of any other country in the world and they have lost more people by shootings than all the losses they have suffered in wars since world war 2. What the hell have automobile deaths got to do with murder.

1 hour ago, Inepto Cracy said:

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

In South Africa we are finding out, that criminals commit fewer crimes when shot.

Personal view, I would like to see more concealed carry guns, criminals would then have to deceide if the person they going to attack, will shoot back or not.

That's the ticket = arm everyone. The more guns, the safer ... wait ... what?!

As a private citizen ( US ), carried a hand gun for the better part of 28 years. Pointed at 2 people and at the floor 2 times in front of somebody - 1 time in the middle of summer when 2 men in heavy over coats with hands inside the coats came in a store I was visiting..they stopped at the door and left...about 5 minutes later were stoped by police .. they had a armory in the car,....Pointed 1 time time backing up a cop who knew me in a store ..attempted armed robbery by one man who pointed the gun at the cop..I asked the cop where to shoot the robber...robbery over.

 

None of the above ever made the news

2 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

I have never been to the states. Not because of any objections, just that work took me to other places, so I am not so well informed as other members here about the life there. However, I see all these mass shootings, and particularly the last sad event in Vegas, and I wonder how an individual can own so many heavy duty firearms. I acknowledge the Constitution referring to the right to bear arms, but surely, that was written in the fledgling years of the country when it was a dangerous and lawless place to be, and defending your family and property was a necessity. Has that situation, and therefore, that part of the constitution been made mute by progress in civilisation ? 

"I have never been to the states. Not because of any objections, just that work took me to other places, so I am not so well informed as other members here about the life there."

 

And yet you don't hesitate to grace us with your expert opinion that our Constitution is "moot".   Yeah, what a pearl.

 

I'm always entertained by foreigners lamely attempting to rationalize away the U.S. Constitution, knowing next to nothing about it.  Common Sense 101:  The Constitution is not subject to being rendered "moot" by "progress".  The founders foresaw the need and there IS a constitutional process for amendments, and it's been successfully and frequently used; in fact, 27 times. And actually - there's another way.   A Constitutional convention could be called to redraft the whole thing.  But spoiled petulant loser brat wingnuts determined to have their own way, lawful or not, tremble at the mention of that because they know they simply don't have the public support that would be necessary.   To them, even the most critical founding principles of the republic have value only insomuch as they serve strictly liberal purposes.   So they've pumped the federal courts full of their most intensely wingnut brethren until all the Clinton and Obama appointees have implicitly declared their right, and indeed the "necessity" to "interpret" the Constitution (which is to say, rewrite it according to their own agenda and blatantly to subvert it).  Fortunately, that can now begin to change, beginning with the Supreme Court.

 

Yes, a wealthy elitist whackjob bought himself a bunch of guns and gunned down 58 innocent people and wounded hundreds more.  FYI, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 600.  Without a gun.  The 9-11 pigs killed 2996 people.  Without a gun.   Three people were killed and 264 (at least) were wounded in the Boston Bombing.  Without a gun.  The U.S. has a gun count estimated at between 270 and 310 million.  Canada, another 10 million.   Heaven knows how many south of the border in the land of the rising cartels - 15 million AT LEAST.   And some lunatics - who furiously argue against the wall that would restrict not only the flow of guns across the border but the flow of illegals that man the gun-using streetgangs (ever heard of MS13?  Eh?  Most members from El Salvador.  Sureños?  Mexican Mafia?) and cartel killers as well - figure that by simply passing a law, that can all go to zero, and nobody will die at the hands of gun-wielding gangs, cartels, and other assorted felons while unable to defend themselves.  Oh yeah baby, where can I sign up for THAT lunatic plan?  We can't win the war on drugs.  We can't win the war on crime. We're not allowed to have a wall.  But oh sure - we could win a war on guns.

 

And these same wingnuts still can't grasp why Hillary lost...

 

13 minutes ago, tigermoth said:

Stupid comment. The death rate by shootings in the USA is 4 times that of any other country in the world and they have lost more people by shootings than all the losses they have suffered in wars since world war 2. What the hell have automobile deaths got to do with murder.

It's simple.  Cars kill multiple times the number of people every year than guns.  So should we ban them as well? Legal gun owners have over 200 million guns, and over 12 TRILLION rounds of ammunition.  But all it takes is ONE crackpot like the Vegas shooter, and suddenly all gun owners are mass murders just waiting for their chance to strike. 

Everything should be restricted all over the world. We need strict control over everything. People have too many clothes, too many cars, children have too many toys. People should only have 1 small mirror...more than one leads to narcissism and the wasteful purchase of make-up, useless grooming products and other plastic and or petroleum derivative products, that harm our environment. Once we get all this under control, we can deal with dangerous recreational products, such as surfboards, archery equipment, baseball bats, cricket bats and all knives & swords, except registered kitchen knives - restaurants can register more than the one knife limit of each household. All dangerous fishing equipment should be restricted as well. Rope of any size, excluding hawsers, needs regulations to prevent deliberate or accidental use that might harm someone.  All currently illegal drug use, sales and manufacture should have instant death penalty results, and all drugs, coffee, tea, sugar-based drinks and foods need immediate regulating , with severe penalties for misuse.  I realize this doesn't cover everything to keep us safe but it's a reasonable start. 

2 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

... Has that situation, and therefore, that part of the constitution been made mute by progress in civilisation ? 

There's been progress?

So, here is my American two cents. I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. In the states, I owned hunting guns and pistols (7 total) and held a Concealed Deadly Weapon License (for which I took classes and passed tests to qualify...in addition to the criminal background check). So, sorry, you don't get to paint me as anti-gun (ha! a right-winger's worst nightmare, I am an armed liberal). HOWEVER ... I fully support restricting gun ownership to citizens who have been given a rather thorough background check (not a rigorous as, say, someone wishing to come to the US as a refugee - that would be a 2 year waiting period). Further, no, I do not recognize a "right" to have assault type weapons, armor piercing ammunition, RPGs or other military weapons. If you need these to defend against your own government, you have already lost your country. And do not cite strict Constitutionalism to me. All "Rights" are limited when they come into conflict with other's rights. And as a student of history ... "A well-regulated militia being necessary being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the beginning reason for the 2nd Amendment. So let us be reasonable....or I am forced to press a demand that only members of the well-regulated militia have a "Right" to bear arms.

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

It is waaaaaay past time to put heavy restrictions on guns, the number of guns and who can have them.

 

The US has seen several truly horrific mass shootings in the last few years, but each time nothing is done. The worst was the mass murder of those schoolchildren; 20 or so very young children (6/7/8 years old?) and no action to try to remedy the situation. It is disgusting and unbecoming in a civilized country.

 

I think it is wrong, but if people want to have a hand gun at home and perhaps a shot gun for hunting, fine. I don't see the need, but this is something important for some. However, I truly do not see the need for an AR 15 or a M16 or any other king of 'long gun''. It is barbaric and unnecessary. 

 

Reasonable background checks should be mandatory. People need a licence to drive a car, why not to own a gun? 

 

The US had gone mental with the second amendment.

 

It is time to try to undo some of the damage.

 

If I'm not mistaken the majority of Americans want stronger background checks, and some restrictions on weapon purchases. It doesn't happen because the Republican Congress is paid to protect the gun manufactures. Ironically these same individuals claim to be the party of "family values."  LOL LOL LOL  Have they looked at or listened to their draft dodging, pathological liar leader?

 

When they did NOTHING after the slaughter of little, innocent children they will never do anything. I hope there is karma for these folks.

11 minutes ago, edwardflory said:

As a private citizen ( US ), carried a hand gun for the better part of 28 years. Pointed at 2 people and at the floor 2 times in front of somebody - 1 time in the middle of summer when 2 men in heavy over coats with hands inside the coats came in a store I was visiting..they stopped at the door and left...about 5 minutes later were stoped by police .. they had a armory in the car,....Pointed 1 time time backing up a cop who knew me in a store ..attempted armed robbery by one man who pointed the gun at the cop..I asked the cop where to shoot the robber...robbery over.

 

None of the above ever made the news

...until now!

18 minutes ago, tigermoth said:

Stupid comment. The death rate by shootings in the USA is 4 times that of any other country in the world and they have lost more people by shootings than all the losses they have suffered in wars since world war 2. What the hell have automobile deaths got to do with murder.

According to the latest information, Honduras has the highest murder rate of any country in the world. The USA doesn't even make the top 25 - AND by removing Chicago, New York, Detroit and possibly Washington D.C. (gang -related shooting deaths/ Democrat controlled cities) the USA doesn't even get on any list. So the lawful use of more than 250 Million guns, apparently isn't a actual problem.

39 minutes ago, Dazspur said:

Oh dear, hand out more weapons. Really?

 

All countries with gun controls have seen immediate and drastic reductions in gun related deaths.

 

This makes for very sobering (and disturbing) reading http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

12,000 deaths and 25,000 injuries in 2017 alone YTD with year on year increases is unimaginable in any civilised country.

 

Sorry. Was trying to pre-empt some of the usual so called arguments that come up on threads such as this. NRA has said (and have often been repeated) that more guns reduce gun crime so arming everyone with a minimum of 2 should make the figures drop like a stone. The figures must have been so high before the gun was even invented that it is a surprise we did not go extinct. I was going to mention that the facile 'ban knives, cars and or hammers' had not yet been brought up but it has since.

 

The time to restrict gun ownership was decades ago. 

 

Now the the time is to take them all, melt them down and forge them into a monument listing the names of all those murdered, because of the lunacy that gun ownership is an inalienable right. 

Everyone supporting the current US gun laws is actually accessory to murder! If it would be banned to carry firearms in public, it would be also easier to disarm criminals. Maybe in some cases a gun in private hands could stop a robbery. But in how many cases those confrontations lead to deadly shootings? Wouldn't it be better to let the robbers go with their swag and let the police do their job?

A few exceptions might make sense. Firearms could be allowed on private land or inside your own apartment for self defence or in shooting clubs. But not in public.