OK, so why exactly do people who do not live in or have strong connections to the United States deciding what United States law is? If you think that guns should be banned, fine. Live in a country where they ban guns. The U.S. is a democracy. People living in the U.S. get to decide U.S. law. If the vast majority of the public really wanted stronger gun laws, don't ya think they would have voted them into being by now? This is simple fact: the majority of Americans do not favor stronger gun laws. If you ever looked at the map of the United States following the '12 elections, you will see that most of the states were "red" states going to Romney (i.e. pro gun). Even in the "blue" states that went to Obama there are plenty of democrats (me included) who are pro gun.

Goodness me, I thought it was a map of the old Confederacy, the slave states.

With a couple of exceptions of course.

No that I'm suggesting there could possibly be any connection.

IMO The worst thing that could happen in the USA is to have guns only in the hands of the Government and outlaws. Standing next toaAn honest man with a gun is a safe place to be.

Oh well, I suppose you need the guns because the other guy has one.

I have guns because I like target shooting. Some people like golf. Some people like scuba diving. I like target shooting. it's not like it's a recognized international sport with competitions in every country or even a part of the olympics or anything.

I have guns because I like target shooting. Some people like golf. Some people like scuba diving. I like target shooting. it's not like it's a recognized international sport with competitions in every country or even a part of the olympics or anything.

Fine... keep your guns in a Gun Club.

OK, so why exactly do people who do not live in or have strong connections to the United States deciding what United States law is?

Good question. Two answers:-

1. One of the fun things about OTB is that posters comment on all sorts of topic. If I start a thread about England or Europe, sure enough among the first to reply will be American posters. I have no problem with this.

2. The American media scream their problems so stridently that the rest of the world feels almost compelled (out of the goodness of their hearts, of course) to offer their two ha'pennies' worth.

I question your comment, ( in the part of your post I didn't quote) that the majority of Americans support the gun laws. In spite of the "Gun Lobby", which we hear about so often, the American media (again) seem to suggest that opinion is about equal. In your 'democracy', it is not what is believed, but who believes it, that counts.

What do you want the guns for?

Self-defence? Is the US such a dangerous country?

any country can be a dangerous country I-Birder. that's why i was always striving to have access to a gun although it was and is not always possible. luckily i never used one except when wearing a uniform or hunting.

I have guns because I like target shooting. Some people like golf. Some people like scuba diving. I like target shooting. it's not like it's a recognized international sport with competitions in every country or even a part of the olympics or anything.

Fine... keep your guns in a Gun Club.

the probability that gun clubs are robbed is very low. the probably that armed robbers crash into your home and threaten you or your loved ones is infinitely higher. logical conclusion where to keep one's guns?

Oh well, I suppose you need the guns because the other guy has one.

a gun comes in handier than a pencil when an armed robber threatens you with a machete.

And if one of the grand kids pops off a few rounds at another playing cowboys?

You're going to keep them locked up did you say?

Hope you can get them unlocked before that dude with the machete starts carving fillets.

What do you want the guns for?

Self-defence? Is the US such a dangerous country?

any country can be a dangerous country I-Birder. that's why i was always striving to have access to a gun although it was and is not always possible. luckily i never used one except when wearing a uniform or hunting.

I've known three murderees in my lifetime, and was at school with a fourth. I've been burgled at least four times, and once my partner was threatened with a knife. And yet in none of the countries where I have lived have I felt at risk. I have little worth stealing (except my laptop; a thief wouldn't bother with my mobile). When I've been foolish enough to have gold jewellery in the house, it has been stolen... and I won't get any more. Life to me is not worth living of these things are so important (except the knife... and that was meant for prevention rather than aggression).

We never felt threatened in the UK of my youth (where the policemen were proud of the fact that they didn't carry guns). My life for the past fifty years has been spent in Singapore (before it was sanitised), Hong Kong, and Thailand. There were no-go places in all three.... and in fifty years I've only felt threatened in the Kowloon Walled City, where I had no business to be.

I cannot always be looking over my shoulder for "the fiend that close behind me treads", and I would not like to live in a country where I felt on the defensive all the time.

Violence breeds violence. Guns have a nasty tendency to get shot, not always by the so-called owner. For every responsible owner who keeps them locked up (and, as Sceadugenga says, then they're not much use against an armed burglar), another will leave them accessible to others, maybe to the crazies who shoot up schools. And in fairness to Naam, I must say that the only country where the citizens have shown themselves responsible as gun-owners is Switzerland.... and then there was Zug (I think it was).

I thought that was a rhetorical question because it isn't a big secret. But here's a hint, check the past hundred years for large countries that have killed millions of their own citizens.

Gosh, past hundred years...

"Left wingers" take control, disarm population and murder millions of their fellow citizens...Russia, China are obvious candidates for the second half of your claim but "disarming" the victims to be?

If you want something really controversial try accounting for the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere post the arrival of the Spanish et al. Most of those deaths were post disarmament of the indigenous population. Perhaps that explains today's gun fetish, a concern that the descendants of the victims might come back to avenge the removal of said population groups....

The indigenous population in the Western Hemisphere were disarmed after they were killed. Killed not by people of Asian descent, or Slavic, or African, but mostly of English, Scottish and Irish descent. Seems to have been a pattern throughout history.

And in fairness to Naam, I must say that the only country where the citizens have shown themselves responsible as gun-owners is Switzerland.... and then there was Zug (I think it was).

yes there was. excerpts only:

The gunman was apparently a criminal psychopath, who was obsessed with weapons. Leibacher was born in the canton of Zug in 1944, spending the last 30 years drifting restlessly around the world.

His dispute with the Zug authorities stemmed from an argument in a bar in October 1998. After getting into a quarrel with a bus driver drinking in the bar, Leibacher threatened him with revolver.

Leibacher’s first criminal offence was recorded in 1970, when he was 26. He was sentenced by the Zug criminal court to 18 months’ detention for “repeated participation in organised theft, receipt of stolen goods, business fraud and a sexual offence against children”. As a consequence, he was admitted into an institution for corrective behaviour.

Between 1976 and 1985, as well as a number of minor offences he was twice accused of “violating war materiel legislation” for illegally importing handguns into Switzerland.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/28/world/14-killed-in-attack-on-a-swiss-legislature.html

OK, so why exactly do people who do not live in or have strong connections to the United States deciding what United States law is? If you think that guns should be banned, fine. Live in a country where they ban guns. The U.S. is a democracy. People living in the U.S. get to decide U.S. law. If the vast majority of the public really wanted stronger gun laws, don't ya think they would have voted them into being by now? This is simple fact: the majority of Americans do not favor stronger gun laws. If you ever looked at the map of the United States following the '12 elections, you will see that most of the states were "red" states going to Romney (i.e. pro gun). Even in the "blue" states that went to Obama there are plenty of democrats (me included) who are pro gun.

Democrats like guns too? Shocker! That would be headline news to the "rest of the world". From what I've read from their representatives, only crazed, right-wing Republicans like guns. Seriously, you are right, guns receive broad support among Americans, Republicans and Democrats, and that's why politicians don't push for more laws. The NRA spends very little lobbying compared to other lobbying groups, I think they rank around 40th or more.

And if one of the grand kids pops off a few rounds at another playing cowboys?

You're going to keep them locked up did you say?

Hope you can get them unlocked before that dude with the machete starts carving fillets.

no, i did not say locked up. but if you are not able to store a weapon without being accessible to children then you should not own a weapon.

We never felt threatened in the UK of my youth (where the policemen were proud of the fact that they didn't carry guns).

Me either and I grew up in Dixie where pretty much everyone had guns.

There could be a million people in the USA shot up in schools and there STILL would be NOTHING done about controlling guns. The right wingers see the downsides as the price of their so called freedom.

What crap! Where is the "Don't like this" button?

As George Will noted: "In 1996, a man went into a gym class in Scotland, killed 16 5- and 6-year-olds and the teacher. A few years ago in Norway, a young -- deranged young man killed, what, 69 people on an island, mostly teenagers. Connecticut has among the toughest gun laws in this country. Didn't help. Scotland and Norway have very tough gun laws. Didn't help...." People that want to use guns to kill or injure people will get them fairly easily, illegally. If hoards of people can sneak across the border from Mexico into the US, so can hoards of guns -- the next cocaine and marijuana traffic. Perhaps they will buy them from the US Government in the next "Fast & Furious" program. Gun control is nothing more than a "feel good, accomplish nothing" effort. No surprise that Obama and his dead-head pals would take up the gun control banner.

There could be a million people in the USA shot up in schools and there STILL would be NOTHING done about controlling guns. The right wingers see the downsides as the price of their so called freedom.

What crap! Where is the "Don't like this" button?

As George Will noted: "In 1996, a man went into a gym class in Scotland, killed 16 5- and 6-year-olds and the teacher. A few years ago in Norway, a young -- deranged young man killed, what, 69 people on an island, mostly teenagers. Connecticut has among the toughest gun laws in this country. Didn't help. Scotland and Norway have very tough gun laws. Didn't help...." People that want to use guns to kill or injure people will get them fairly easily, illegally. If hoards of people can sneak across the border from Mexico into the US, so can hoards of guns -- the next cocaine and marijuana traffic. Perhaps they will buy them from the US Government in the next "Fast & Furious" program. Gun control is nothing more than a "feel good, accomplish nothing" effort. No surprise that Obama and his dead-head pals would take up the gun control banner.

So what do you think should be done in respect of the killings at Newtown?

Or is it just a case of "move along, nothing relevant here"?

There could be a million people in the USA shot up in schools and there STILL would be NOTHING done about controlling guns. The right wingers see the downsides as the price of their so called freedom.

What crap! Where is the "Don't like this" button?

As George Will noted: "In 1996, a man went into a gym class in Scotland, killed 16 5- and 6-year-olds and the teacher. A few years ago in Norway, a young -- deranged young man killed, what, 69 people on an island, mostly teenagers. Connecticut has among the toughest gun laws in this country. Didn't help. Scotland and Norway have very tough gun laws. Didn't help...." People that want to use guns to kill or injure people will get them fairly easily, illegally. If hoards of people can sneak across the border from Mexico into the US, so can hoards of guns -- the next cocaine and marijuana traffic. Perhaps they will buy them from the US Government in the next "Fast & Furious" program. Gun control is nothing more than a "feel good, accomplish nothing" effort. No surprise that Obama and his dead-head pals would take up the gun control banner.

Yes, changing the gun laws will not stop guns coming into the US, but the school killings are not committed by the type of criminal who would get a gun through illegal means. They're committed by what were previously thought to be ordinary people, very often young people getting hold of their parents' guns.

One incident in Dunblane, Scotland, one in Norway, one in Zug, Switzerland are isolated instances for those countries... and could be parallelled, perhaps less horrifically, from other countries. In the US there have been many instances. I have merely suggested that making it harder for ordinary people to get guns would cut the death toll in these incidents, by making the crazies use other weapons, probably knives. It won't make the crazies sane.

A challenge for you gun law supporters. Some way back in this thread I gave comparative figures for gun deaths in US and UK, which someone said were decades out of date. Maybe! Would someone give recent comparative figures for gun deaths in USA and Britain, France, or Germany so that we can see if the USA is really as bad as gun law opponents make it out to be? I think the USA will turn out to be much worse. If I'm wrong, I'll willingly apologise.

The latest info I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The latest info I can find.

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

Thanks, RabC. Interesting link. Some extracts:- (figures per 100,000 population)

USA 9.2 / homicides 3.7 (2008-10)

Switzerland 3.5 / 0.52 (2010)

France 3.0 / 0.22 (2009)

Germany 1.1 / 0.06 (2010)

U.K. 0.25 / 0.04 (2011)

Most of the rest, in fact, are suicides.

So, while my earlier figures were wrong, the general principle was right. The US has an appalling record as far as gun-related deaths are concerned. (There are worse places... El Salvador has a rate of 50+!, all homicides). It is almost 100 times worse than the UK.

If you find this acceptable, then I think you're right in supporting the US gun laws as they are.

An extract from the Washington Post.

But The Washington Post poll did not show a significant shift in public opinion on the gun issue itself. A clear majority of Americans continues to support a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips — the kind used at Sandy Hook last week, and in other recent high-profile killings. Just over half support banning semiautomatic handguns. At the same time, nearly three out of four Americans continue to oppose banning the sale of all handguns except to law enforcement officers.

Where to start, you ask?

How about the mental health profession? The people performing these murderous acts are psychos. A system needs to be set up that identifies these sorts of personalities and notifies the appropriate authorities for assistance. We have trillions being spent on Obamacare so I am sure they could find the funds to cover a program that would help solve this problem.

I further believe the entertainment industry needs to be held accountable for the overly explicit violence and killing shown in movies, television and, in particular, the gaming industry. Too many young people have grown up watching the blood and guts which sells the entertainment products and have grown to see violence as a way out of their problems. The people in Hollywood and New York need to wake up and realize they are a very large part of the problem and then take voluntary action to help solve it.

All you folks that claim the conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment is at fault here should also consider the liberal interpretation of the First Amendment should have the same amount of guilt applied to it. There is plenty of blame to go around on this issue and blaming the Second amendment and gun ownership alone is the wrong way to go.

Where to start, you ask?

How about the mental health profession? The people performing these murderous acts are psychos. A system needs to be set up that identifies these sorts of personalities and notifies the appropriate authorities for assistance. We have trillions being spent on Obamacare so I am sure they could find the funds to cover a program that would help solve this problem.

I further believe the entertainment industry needs to be held accountable for the overly explicit violence and killing shown in movies, television and, in particular, the gaming industry. Too many young people have grown up watching the blood and guts which sells the entertainment products and have grown to see violence as a way out of their problems. The people in Hollywood and New York need to wake up and realize they are a very large part of the problem and then take voluntary action to help solve it.

All you folks that claim the conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment is at fault here should also consider the liberal interpretation of the First Amendment should have the same amount of guilt applied to it. There is plenty of blame to go around on this issue and blaming the Second amendment and gun ownership alone is the wrong way to go.

And the rest of the western world are also exposed to exactly there same movies and games. I don't blame it all on guns, there is something inherently wrong with American social fabric and sadly small school children are paying the cost.

Where to start, you ask?

How about the mental health profession? The people performing these murderous acts are psychos. A system needs to be set up that identifies these sorts of personalities and notifies the appropriate authorities for assistance. We have trillions being spent on Obamacare so I am sure they could find the funds to cover a program that would help solve this problem.

I further believe the entertainment industry needs to be held accountable for the overly explicit violence and killing shown in movies, television and, in particular, the gaming industry. Too many young people have grown up watching the blood and guts which sells the entertainment products and have grown to see violence as a way out of their problems. The people in Hollywood and New York need to wake up and realize they are a very large part of the problem and then take voluntary action to help solve it.

All you folks that claim the conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment is at fault here should also consider the liberal interpretation of the First Amendment should have the same amount of guilt applied to it. There is plenty of blame to go around on this issue and blaming the Second amendment and gun ownership alone is the wrong way to go.

Nobody is blaming it all on guns, Chuck, just that the gun laws are what this thread is about.

I agree that the media take a big share of the blame, and also the apparent inadequacy of the mental health services.

But tighter gun laws renewing the ban on assault weapons, and banning all sorts of multiple-fire handguns is the nearest thing to a quick fix.

This map (from the BBC website) shows the homicide rate by firearms per 100,000 in selected states in 2011. Most are in the Republican south, but lowest shown is Connecticut, where the recent atrocity took place. Oh, and the worst is DC, but who blames them?

Where to start, you ask?

How about the mental health profession? The people performing these murderous acts are psychos. A system needs to be set up that identifies these sorts of personalities and notifies the appropriate authorities for assistance. We have trillions being spent on Obamacare so I am sure they could find the funds to cover a program that would help solve this problem.

I further believe the entertainment industry needs to be held accountable for the overly explicit violence and killing shown in movies, television and, in particular, the gaming industry. Too many young people have grown up watching the blood and guts which sells the entertainment products and have grown to see violence as a way out of their problems. The people in Hollywood and New York need to wake up and realize they are a very large part of the problem and then take voluntary action to help solve it.

All you folks that claim the conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment is at fault here should also consider the liberal interpretation of the First Amendment should have the same amount of guilt applied to it. There is plenty of blame to go around on this issue and blaming the Second amendment and gun ownership alone is the wrong way to go.

And the rest of the western world are also exposed to exactly there same movies and games. I don't blame it all on guns, there is something inherently wrong with American social fabric and sadly small school children are paying the cost.

As bad as the American "social fabric" might be with all the violence on TV and the games, at least families - women and children - can attend sporting events without risking their lives. When was the last time you saw a European footie match on TV and they showed women and children enjoying themselves in the stands? Never, it's too dangerous. I doubt you guys ever pay any attention to it, but as an American used to seeing the camera show hot chicks or cute children with their faces painted in the team colors, I can help but notice the cast of Green Street Hooligans each time the camera pans the crowd. In America, they have a thing called the "Kiss Cam" where when the camera finds a couple and puts their faces on the big screen, they are supposed to kiss. In Euro football stadiums they have the same thing but it's called the Punch-in-the-Face-Without-Spilling-Your-Beer Cam. Oy!

No, the sporting events angle is not off topic. Perhaps the reason that in a violent culture like in America, people feel safe enough to bring their families out is they know that being physically assaulted is a rare occurrence and that is because someone in the crowd is packing heat - and they know the cops aren't afraid to use theirs. Whereas in Europe and other places, there is no way to protect your families so you keep them at home.

Nearly 100,000 at the Dallas-Pittsburgh game yesterday and I can guarantee there were some concealed handguns in the stadium.

Nary a hint of trouble...and this is in Texas.

Nearly 100,000 at the Dallas-Pittsburgh game yesterday and I can guarantee there were some concealed handguns in the stadium.

Nary a hint of trouble...and this is in Texas.

and your point is....?