I don't quite know what these sporting events have to do with the issue. The figures show a far greater number of homicides involving firearms occur in the USA than in the various Western European countries I named. Where? Why? Is the problem drug-related, and is that where we should be looking for answers? Is it all about Hispanic hot tempers or Afro-American respect issues? Sporting events are relatively violence-free, so where is the violence taking place? Is so much of it concentrated in Detroit and New York City (and a few others, perhaps) that the figures for the country as a whole are distorted?

I don't quite know what these sporting events have to do with the issue. The figures show a far greater number of homicides involving firearms occur in the USA than in the various Western European countries I named. Where? Why? Is the problem drug-related, and is that where we should be looking for answers? Is it all about Hispanic hot tempers or Afro-American respect issues? Sporting events are relatively violence-free, so where is the violence taking place? Is so much of it concentrated in Detroit and New York City (and a few others, perhaps) that the figures for the country as a whole are distorted?

Here is some interesting information in these FBI Charts, note how many homicides/gun related homicides involved rifles, and that is all rifles, not just the so called assault rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Actually, shotguns appear to be used slightly more than rifles, maybe they will pick on them next.

I don't quite know what these sporting events have to do with the issue. The figures show a far greater number of homicides involving firearms occur in the USA than in the various Western European countries I named. Where? Why? Is the problem drug-related, and is that where we should be looking for answers? Is it all about Hispanic hot tempers or Afro-American respect issues? Sporting events are relatively violence-free, so where is the violence taking place? Is so much of it concentrated in Detroit and New York City (and a few others, perhaps) that the figures for the country as a whole are distorted?

Here is some interesting information in these FBI Charts, note how many homicides/gun related homicides involved rifles, and that is all rifles, not just the so called assault rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Actually, shotguns appear to be used slightly more than rifles, maybe they will pick on them next.

You really can't see the wood for the trees can you. What you have just shown is the horrific number of gun deaths in the USA, be they handguns, rifles or,shotguns. Is it really poetic justice that the "worlds policeman" is being taken apart by its own constitution????

I don't quite know what these sporting events have to do with the issue. The figures show a far greater number of homicides involving firearms occur in the USA than in the various Western European countries I named. Where? Why? Is the problem drug-related, and is that where we should be looking for answers? Is it all about Hispanic hot tempers or Afro-American respect issues? Sporting events are relatively violence-free, so where is the violence taking place? Is so much of it concentrated in Detroit and New York City (and a few others, perhaps) that the figures for the country as a whole are distorted?

Here is some interesting information in these FBI Charts, note how many homicides/gun related homicides involved rifles, and that is all rifles, not just the so called assault rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/a.../10shrtbl08.xls

Actually, shotguns appear to be used slightly more than rifles, maybe they will pick on them next.

You really can't see the wood for the trees can you. What you have just shown is the horrific number of gun deaths in the USA, be they handguns, rifles or,shotguns. Is it really poetic justice that the "worlds policeman" is being taken apart by its own constitution????

Actually I see the forest and the trees quite well, one experience was my step father saved his and my mother's life about 20 years ago during an armed robbery attempt on their grocery store, he killed one, and chased away the other 2, they were caught and put in jail.

As to the homicides, I have a lot of sympathy for the innocent victims. But, I know some of those were criminals taking out other criminals, often with stolen weapons that have nothing to do with gun control laws.

If the country is falling apart, it has little to do with the constitution, and more about society in general. You also seemed to have failed to notice, that the numbers are at least going down, all though I agree, not quickly enough.

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....?

...pretty obvious of you read the post immediately before mine.

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....?

...pretty obvious of you read the post immediately before mine.

I think he';s saying they're all rugby league fans in Texas, and they can get the train together 200 miles down to Wembley, play the Challenge Cup Final, and come back, and all have a Grand Day Out. Apparently, Americans would prefer to do this with a Colt 45 in their pocket, while I would prefer a McEwans Export

SC

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.

How utterly pathetic...

You obviously were not around for the London Olympics, perhaps too busy digging in your bunker for Dec 21 2012. Relying on some sad civvy with a piece of dick-replacement hardware... a person who probably barely knows how to use it in a real situation, as opposed to pinging targets on a range or playing Call of Duty whatever version, wow that really makes a lot of sense...

UK in 2010 saw a total of 636 homicides , with 60 caused by firearms (and I deliberately chose that year as it includes the shotgun rampage in Cumbria which claimed 12 lives, 2011 saw half that number of firearms related deaths, so I cannot be accused of cherry picking).

In the USA in 2010 there were 12,995 homicides, with 8775 firearms related. Given that the US population is 5x that of the UK, there is more than a slight statistical blip here. UK less than 10% of homicides gun related, USA 68%. I know the US has a fixation about exceptionalism, but do Americans really enjoy being exceptional in this respect?

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....?

...pretty obvious of you read the post immediately before mine.

I think he';s saying they're all rugby league fans in Texas, and they can get the train together 200 miles down to Wembley, play the Challenge Cup Final, and come back, and all have a Grand Day Out. Apparently, Americans would prefer to do this with a Colt 45 in their pocket, while I would prefer a McEwans Export

SC

Colt 45? Nasty...that's the drink not the handgun, though to be honest.. McEwans red?? Go for the Papist punch with a bottle of Blether's favourite tipple, all the way from a monastery in sleepy Devon.

Koheesti

Any chance of some examples? Thanks.

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.

1. 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. 1929: the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million kulaks, peasants, and dissidents who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

3. 1935: Maoist China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million people (est), unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

4. 1938: Nazi Gerrmany established gun control and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, weaponless, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. 1956: Cambodia established gun control. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, from 1975 to 1977, round up and murder OVER one million educated people, who could not be “reeducated”, were rounded up and exterminated.

Koheesti

Any chance of some examples? Thanks.

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.

1. 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. 1929: the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million kulaks, peasants, and dissidents who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

3. 1935: Maoist China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million people (est), unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

4. 1938: Nazi Gerrmany established gun control and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, weaponless, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. 1956: Cambodia established gun control. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, from 1975 to 1977, round up and murder OVER one million educated people, who could not be “reeducated”, were rounded up and exterminated.

I presume this is a joke;;;?

1. Turkey did not exist in 1911. the Ottoman Empire was a tad busy fighting WW1 and many Armenians were conscripted into the Ottoman forces. What did happen in 1915 was that Enver Pasha ordered all Armenian soldiers to be transferred to unarmed labour battalions prior to the bloodbath. No hint of gun control anywhere here and certainly not in this photo of Armenian troops at the siege of Van in 1915.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Defenders.jpg

2. Many of the murders committed by the Soviets eg the Holodomor in Ukraine 1932-33 were the result of intentional famine and guns are not great to eat.

3. 1935 China was most definitely not Maoist, that would have to wait until Mao's accession to power post the Civil War in 1949. Again most of the murders were famine related during the "Great Leap Forward", but certainly several million were murdered by execution.

4. The 1938 German Weapons Act was actually a relative relaxation of gun laws brought in by the Weimar government worried about its existence in post-Versailles Germany. The banning of Jews from owning weapons is a canard beloved of the gun lobby. see below for a more rational view...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

5. 1956 Cambodia established gun control and that explains the murders committed by the Khmer Rouge 20 years later, that's about as funny and relevant as Thailand declaring prostitution illegal.

You seemed to have missed a few off the gun lobby website favourites such as Guatemala and Uganda, but perhaps they don't count...

truly pathetic argument, if it can be graced with such a term, and how does this apply to the USA anyway? Is the "socialist" regime of Obama going to disarm the "patriots" and then murder them all. Perhaps you need to be blowing up some federal buildings in Oklahoma City to prevent such an outrage.......Pathetic, sad and beyond contempt.

This is getting ugly. Alright. Let's follow through with the thoughts here. Let's outlaw gun ownership. The USA can be like Mexico, which also happens to have some of the strictest gun laws of any nation on earth. There are documented incidents of Police from the U.S. (San Diego) taking a wrong turn, ended up in Mexico and then arrested. Google the number of shootings related to the drug cartels. Mexico made possessions of guns criminal. Now only the criminals have guns. Much like cocaine, heroin, meth, and yaba is illegal. It's not like you can't go down to the street corner and buy it if you really wanted to.

And then you look at places like Switzerland where every adult male of military age is legally required to have a fully automatic assault rifle as a part of national defense. Very low crime rate, very low crimes committed with guns.

In the U.S. it is a Federal felony to make a pipe bomb (10 years in prison if caught). Lot's of kids make pipe bombs and then videotape themselves blowing things up on youtube. There are instructions on the internet on how to make a pipe bomb. Now look at Thailand, and if you recall the last round of shootings (where high schoolers where doing the gangman dance afterwards), the guns they were using were homemade, "predit Thai" guns. Great out law guns. I know how to make one out of plumbing pipe. So does a Thai high schooler.

In the United States, there are around 250 million guns in circulation, 45 or so million households with at least one firearm, or nearly 50% of the households in the United States. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

The entire population of the UK is what? 65 million people?

So the fact that there are 45 million, law abiding citizens with guns who cause no harm, for the sake of the one or two nutjobs that come along every year, the remaining 45 million of us shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

If you want to know what the problem is, it is really America's medical privacy laws which prevent doctors from disclosing to authorities that people have mental illness. it's called "HIPAA": http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

The shooters that go on spree have mental illness. People who are mentally ill, are prohibited by Federal law from purchasing firearms. Connecticut shooter: mentally ill. Virginia Tech shooter: mentally ill. Colorado University (Batman Shooting): mentally ill. If you look into it, these people went to seek psychiatric help. In particular read up with what happened with the Virginia Tech shooter and you'll see that no one reported his mental illness (even though he had been hospitalized) so that when he went for a background check to purchase a gun, it didn't red flag.

The way I look at it, for the sake of protecting the "privacy" of mentally ill people, the reasonable sane adults (all 45 million of us) are now asked to give up firearms. Doesn't make sense to me.

Koheesti

Any chance of some examples? Thanks.

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.

1. 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. 1929: the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million kulaks, peasants, and dissidents who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

3. 1935: Maoist China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million people (est), unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

4. 1938: Nazi Gerrmany established gun control and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, weaponless, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. 1956: Cambodia established gun control. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, from 1975 to 1977, round up and murder OVER one million educated people, who could not be “reeducated”, were rounded up and exterminated.

I presume this is a joke;;;?

1. Turkey did not exist in 1911. the Ottoman Empire was a tad busy fighting WW1 and many Armenians were conscripted into the Ottoman forces. What did happen in 1915 was that Enver Pasha ordered all Armenian soldiers to be transferred to unarmed labour battalions prior to the bloodbath. No hint of gun control anywhere here and certainly not in this photo of Armenian troops at the siege of Van in 1915.

http://en.wikipedia....n_Defenders.jpg

2. Many of the murders committed by the Soviets eg the Holodomor in Ukraine 1932-33 were the result of intentional famine and guns are not great to eat.

3. 1935 China was most definitely not Maoist, that would have to wait until Mao's accession to power post the Civil War in 1949. Again most of the murders were famine related during the "Great Leap Forward", but certainly several million were murdered by execution.

4. The 1938 German Weapons Act was actually a relative relaxation of gun laws brought in by the Weimar government worried about its existence in post-Versailles Germany. The banning of Jews from owning weapons is a canard beloved of the gun lobby. see below for a more rational view...

http://www.guncite.c...gcnazimyth.html

5. 1956 Cambodia established gun control and that explains the murders committed by the Khmer Rouge 20 years later, that's about as funny and relevant as Thailand declaring prostitution illegal.

You seemed to have missed a few off the gun lobby website favourites such as Guatemala and Uganda, but perhaps they don't count...

truly pathetic argument, if it can be graced with such a term, and how does this apply to the USA anyway? Is the "socialist" regime of Obama going to disarm the "patriots" and then murder them all. Perhaps you need to be blowing up some federal buildings in Oklahoma City to prevent such an outrage.......Pathetic, sad and beyond contempt.

It is a joke. Someone sent it to me this morning via email and I thought it would cheer eveyone up.

Here's some more:

6. 1964: Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, without firearms, were rounded up and exterminated.

6. 1970: Uganda established gun control in 1970. In EIGHT YEARS, 300,000 Christians, oddly enough without firearms to defend themselves with, were rounded up and exterminated.

7. 1973: Friend of Obama and ghostwriter for Obama’s TWO autobiographies, William Ayers, domestic terrorist, murderer, and unrepentant terrorist, writes “Prairie Fire” wherein he states that upwards of 25 MILLION Americans will need to be “liquidated” because they won’t be able to be “reeducated.”

8. 1993. Life under an Imperial Federal Government run by Democrats was previewed at Waco and with Elian Gonzalez in 2000. .

This is getting ugly. Alright. Let's follow through with the thoughts here. Let's outlaw gun ownership. The USA can be like Mexico, which also happens to have some of the strictest gun laws of any nation on earth. There are documented incidents of Police from the U.S. (San Diego) taking a wrong turn, ended up in Mexico and then arrested. Google the number of shootings related to the drug cartels. Mexico made possessions of guns criminal. Now only the criminals have guns. Much like cocaine, heroin, meth, and yaba is illegal. It's not like you can't go down to the street corner and buy it if you really wanted to.

While you are googling narco gun crime in Mexico (current score 60,000 dead in 5 years), take a look at where the guns come from. Putting the ludicrous Fast & Furious fiasco aside, exactly because Mexico has proper gun controls and the US does not, means that drug revenue is converted into weapon purchases north of the border. Favoured weapons are AR-15s and .50 Barretts. So the US buys the drugs and sells the same gangsters their guns, all courtesy of the Second Amendment. And don't get me started on US gun sales to Irish terrorists....!

I presume this is a joke;;;?

1. Turkey did not exist in 1911. the Ottoman Empire was a tad busy fighting WW1 and many Armenians were conscripted into the Ottoman forces. What did happen in 1915 was that Enver Pasha ordered all Armenian soldiers to be transferred to unarmed labour battalions prior to the bloodbath. No hint of gun control anywhere here and certainly not in this photo of Armenian troops at the siege of Van in 1915.

http://en.wikipedia....n_Defenders.jpg

2. Many of the murders committed by the Soviets eg the Holodomor in Ukraine 1932-33 were the result of intentional famine and guns are not great to eat.

3. 1935 China was most definitely not Maoist, that would have to wait until Mao's accession to power post the Civil War in 1949. Again most of the murders were famine related during the "Great Leap Forward", but certainly several million were murdered by execution.

4. The 1938 German Weapons Act was actually a relative relaxation of gun laws brought in by the Weimar government worried about its existence in post-Versailles Germany. The banning of Jews from owning weapons is a canard beloved of the gun lobby. see below for a more rational view...

http://www.guncite.c...gcnazimyth.html

5. 1956 Cambodia established gun control and that explains the murders committed by the Khmer Rouge 20 years later, that's about as funny and relevant as Thailand declaring prostitution illegal.

You seemed to have missed a few off the gun lobby website favourites such as Guatemala and Uganda, but perhaps they don't count...

truly pathetic argument, if it can be graced with such a term, and how does this apply to the USA anyway? Is the "socialist" regime of Obama going to disarm the "patriots" and then murder them all. Perhaps you need to be blowing up some federal buildings in Oklahoma City to prevent such an outrage.......Pathetic, sad and beyond contempt.

It is a joke. Someone sent it to me this morning via email and I thought it would cheer eveyone up.

Here's some more:

6. 1964: Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, without firearms, were rounded up and exterminated.

6. 1970: Uganda established gun control in 1970. In EIGHT YEARS, 300,000 Christians, oddly enough without firearms to defend themselves with, were rounded up and exterminated.

7. 1973: Friend of Obama and ghostwriter for Obama’s TWO autobiographies, William Ayers, domestic terrorist, murderer, and unrepentant terrorist, writes “Prairie Fire” wherein he states that upwards of 25 MILLION Americans will need to be “liquidated” because they won’t be able to be “reeducated.”

8. 1993. Life under an Imperial Federal Government run by Democrats was previewed at Waco and with Elian Gonzalez in 2000. .

Telling me it's a joke!!!

If you had posted the last section that would have made it more obvious (perhaps that's why you didn't).

Anyway apologies if I caused any offence with my somewhat punchy response but as you will have noticed this type of stuff tends to rile me...!

The sad thing is that this nonsense gets a lot of circulation on gun-nut websites without any attempts at accuracy.

Favoured weapons are AR-15s and .50 Barretts. So the US buys the drugs and sells the same gangsters their guns, all courtesy of the Second Amendment. And don't get me started on US gun sales to Irish terrorists....!

AR-15, yes. Definitely a favored weapon among the cartels. Barretts? They start off at $8,000 a piece (go up to $12,000 with optics) and are bolt action. the bullets are $5 a piece. Not a cartel favorite.

Yes, the cartels do get them primarily from the United States. Why? Because the U.S. is close, and it is cheaper and easier. But if somehow all the guns dried up from the United States, they'd get them from someplace else. It will cost more money, yes, but they will get them. Much like the United States does not cultivate cocaine plants and that's why they're imported from South America. If people want it bad enough they'll get it.

EDIT: My previous post erroneously stated it was 45 million people with a firearm. The article actually refers to "households". Another article states approximately 47% of the population has a firearm, which out of the U.S. population of 310,000,000, that around 150 million or so Americans have guns.

A realistic reaction to Newtown and the other mass killings at schools would be to ban assault weapons and all handguns which fire more than one round. This may even happen!

If you look back at post #52, I gave the most recent figures for various countries, adjusted to take account of population size. The USA has nearly 100 times as many gun-related homicides as the UK, and seven times Switzerland. This should shock even gun-law advocates.... unless of course they're all drug gangsters killing each other. Mexico is indeed worse, and El Salvador has 50 gun killings per 100,000 pop.

I find drug-riddled Mexico an inept comparison. Clearly law enforcement has broken down there.

Switzerland which has a higher population percentage of guns per capita? The Switzerland which requires all adult males of military service age to keep a fully automatic assault rifle in case of war? They have a lower gun death rate than the United States.

And Mexico which places severe restrictions on ownership of guns, one of the toughest in the world, has more gun deaths per capita than the U.S.?

And you think that it really will happen that the U.S. will ban guns that fire more than one shot or assault rifles. There are about 300 million guns in circulation. Do you really think that anyone is going to turn theirs in, even if it became law?

Switzerland which has a higher population percentage of guns per capita? The Switzerland which requires all adult males of military service age to keep a fully automatic assault rifle in case of war? They have a lower gun death rate than the United States.

And Mexico which places severe restrictions on ownership of guns, one of the toughest in the world, has more gun deaths per capita than the U.S.?

And you think that it really will happen that the U.S. will ban guns that fire more than one shot or assault rifles. There are about 300 million guns in circulation. Do you really think that anyone is going to turn theirs in, even if it became law?

I don't know quite what point you're trying to make, submaniac.

Switzerland which, as you say, has guns in every household, has a worse record than those European countries with which it might like to be compared. It's just because Switzerland has guns in every household that I gave the figures for that country.

Mexico may have the toughest restrictions, but it also has drug cartels running riot, and the restrictions are quite clearly not being enforced.

As for whether or not the US will tighten up the gun laws, my comment was "This may even happen!" I did not say it was likely (I simply don't know), nor would I predict how gun-owning American citizens would react.

What I did say was that the US record was far worse than those of various Western European countries. And US citizens should be ashamed of those figures.

Also the US figures for gun-assisted suicides are high, over 5 per 100,000 pop. But that's a different problem.

In order to radically change gun laws America would need to ammend the Constitution. They allow guns as a way to protect against Tyranny not as a right to hunt or defend themselves from other citizens even though that is also protected it's not the intention of the Constitution which is perfectly clear it's to protect against the Government.

Do Americans want to risk Tyranny to stop a few nuts from doing nutty things which wouldnt stop them anyhow ? Not this week or next but perhaps someday the populous will become that stupid.

A realistic reaction to Newtown and the other mass killings at schools would be to ban assault weapons and all handguns which fire more than one round. This may even happen!

That will never happen in the USA

They already banned assault weapons for 10 years once before and it accomplished very little.

.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."^[ A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

I was just discussing this issue with a friend and he said something which I think is a sign of what worries the pro-gun lobby...."some ammunition should be banned as well even though it wasn't used in the attack [Newtown]". Using the tragedy as an excuse to ban more things that had nothing to do with the tragedy. So while we ban some ammunition & weapons that weren't used...we ignore the fact that the two culprits of 2012's biggest mass shootings were young males, high intelligence, anti-social and on medication for psychiatric issues.

Educational video on what has happened in Australia and could happen in the US...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc&sns=fb

In order to radically change gun laws America would need to ammend the Constitution. They allow guns as a way to protect against Tyranny not as a right to hunt or defend themselves from other citizens even though that is also protected it's not the intention of the Constitution which is perfectly clear it's to protect against the Government.

Do Americans want to risk Tyranny to stop a few nuts from doing nutty things which wouldnt stop them anyhow ? Not this week or next but perhaps someday the populous will become that stupid.

I don't think that rocket propelled grenades, hand held missiles, biological or chemical or laser or atomic weapons were present at the time of the writing of the constitution. Whatever firearm an American carries is not going to stop the government from exercising tyranny with those types of weapons if it so chooses, so I think your point is moot. More realistically, what weapons might be useful for self protection of ones self and family? IMO nothing more than a pump action shotgun and a bolt action rifle would be necessary. Ban all other firearms, (specifically auto and semi auto) and make possesion of them a crime one will serve 2 or more years time for. It's working in NYC and I see no reason it won't work everywhere.

Educational video on what has happened in Australia and could happen in the US...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc&sns=fb

Your use of the word "educational" is somewhat debatable in relation to this propaganda piece, which I presume was scripted and paid for by the NRA.

Funny how the film does not mention he fact that since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 when 35 people were murdered with 2 semi-automatic rifles, an AR-15 (apparently the weapon of choice fo mass murderers) and an SLR, there have been no further incidents since the imposition of UK style gun laws.

Seems like a good result despite the bleatings of the gun nut brigade...

In order to radically change gun laws America would need to ammend the Constitution. They allow guns as a way to protect against Tyranny not as a right to hunt or defend themselves from other citizens even though that is also protected it's not the intention of the Constitution which is perfectly clear it's to protect against the Government.

Do Americans want to risk Tyranny to stop a few nuts from doing nutty things which wouldnt stop them anyhow ? Not this week or next but perhaps someday the populous will become that stupid.

I don't think that rocket propelled grenades, hand held missiles, biological or chemical or laser or atomic weapons were present at the time of the writing of the constitution. Whatever firearm an American carries is not going to stop the government from exercising tyranny with those types of weapons if it so chooses, so I think your point is moot. More realistically, what weapons might be useful for self protection of ones self and family? IMO nothing more than a pump action shotgun and a bolt action rifle would be necessary. Ban all other firearms, (specifically auto and semi auto) and make possesion of them a crime one will serve 2 or more years time for. It's working in NYC and I see no reason it won't work everywhere.

That's an opinion that is simply not shared by most Americans and also factually incorrect ..... Most small rebellions are started by small groups of people comparitively poorly armed fighting against tryanical governments , the idea that ...... well we wont win anyway so lets just give up our guns is foolish.

The founders wanted an armed people for a reason , and a good reason. The idea that they didn't envision more advanced firearms in the future is an absurd nonsence argument , of course they knew firearms would become more advanced over time. What they perhaps did not envision was the sad state of affairs for mentally ill wack jobs which is the problem not the right to keep tryanny at bay with an armed population. And yes bands of armed milita men can stop tryanical governments from using larger wepons like you mentioned ...... If they are armed

Whats the first thing given as help to people trying to take back thier countrys ? Assult wepons , not nukes or aircraft carriers , the direction you would head us in would end us up like Libya where they are reliant on outside help for the arms they need.

The solution is to fix the mentally defunct wack jobs not tear up the Constitution

The reality is that with the millions and millions of "assult" or semi auto guns available only a tiny tiny fraction of them are ever used in these henious crimes and it's simply a huge exaguration of reality to believe that semi automatic wepons are being misused so often by so many people that banning them is a reasonable idea.

A million or so trucks full and partially full of drugs of all kinds come into America every year , banning guns would just mean they would get filled with illegal wepons instead and then only criminals would have them , no sensible person can believe that banning guns would mean an end to guns , just an end to LEGAL guns owned by law abiding citizens.

When the day came when nut jobs were using pump shotguns and bolt action long guns would you be ready to give those up to ? Why should you ? Why should a law abiding person have to give up their rights because of a number of nut jobs acting the fool ?

I realise you won't see it my way but the alternative is pretty scary ...... a country of violent criminals running around with guns knowing no one else can have them. In a world of dangerous wepons capable of killing lots of people quickly I say the more armed honest law abiding people the better , you say not only less of them but none at all leaving only the criminals and the cops to have them , good luck reducing crime with that strategy.

If the purpose of the Constitution was for people to be able to protect themselves and go hunting I would agree with you on your limitations of gun ownership , however that's an irelevant topic of discussion when talking about the right to bear arms in the USA because the right is their to protect againt the government not home intruders. And for the right to be meaningfull and accomplish it's goal of keeping the government in check the population needs to be able to own wepons that would be effective in taking back their government , and a bolt action long gun and a shotgun is simply not enough in todays world of firearms.

Bringing home defence or hunting into this discussion completely misses the point of the amendment and is a nonsense argument because the Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or home defence , they are just a by product of the Right.

If one really wanted to abide by the Amendment and ban semi auto guns you would need to also take them away from the agents of the government however I don't see to many Police organisations sugesting that as a good idea , If the cops and military want to use single shot nerf guns then I have no problem limiting the population to the same , however if they want to have semi auto handguns and assult guns the people need them as well.

Is the 2nd Amendment even a good thing ? Take it away and you will find out the hard way it's better than you think.

Educational video on what has happened in Australia and could happen in the US...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc&sns=fb

Your use of the word "educational" is somewhat debatable in relation to this propaganda piece, which I presume was scripted and paid for by the NRA.

Funny how the film does not mention he fact that since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 when 35 people were murdered with 2 semi-automatic rifles, an AR-15 (apparently the weapon of choice fo mass murderers) and an SLR, there have been no further incidents since the imposition of UK style gun laws.

Seems like a good result despite the bleatings of the gun nut brigade...

Many people refuse to travel to Australia because of the harsh attitude of the authorities there, and their heavy-handed immigration and security policies. It's people live as slaves in poverty under the yoke of tyranny

SC

I suppose the writers of the US Constitution were thinking about tyranny when they added the bit about citizens owning firearms. But do you think modern Americans are worried about tyranny? Yes, tax laws they grumble about, but not the sort of dictatorship you would need guns to fight.

Some people's attitude seems to be, The Constitution is set in stone. Well, it's already been amended a number of times; why shouldn't it be amended again, if necessary? After all, the Constitution dates from 1776, before the French Revolution, and when genuine democracy did not exist anywhere.

Somehow, somewhere, the US has to find some way of lowering the number of firearms-related homicides. 3.7 per 100,000 pop in one year is just too many. If you can accept that as a fair price for your current gun laws, I could not. If there's another way of reducing the death toll, out with it. Yes, control the crazies, but that's easier said than done.

I suppose the writers of the US Constitution were thinking about tyranny when they added the bit about citizens owning firearms. But do you think modern Americans are worried about tyranny? Yes, tax laws they grumble about, but not the sort of dictatorship you would need guns to fight.

Some people's attitude seems to be, The Constitution is set in stone. Well, it's already been amended a number of times; why shouldn't it be amended again, if necessary? After all, the Constitution dates from 1776, before the French Revolution, and when genuine democracy did not exist anywhere.

Somehow, somewhere, the US has to find some way of lowering the number of firearms-related homicides. 3.7 per 100,000 pop in one year is just too many. If you can accept that as a fair price for your current gun laws, I could not. If there's another way of reducing the death toll, out with it. Yes, control the crazies, but that's easier said than done.

"control the crazies?" - that's just the sort of tyranny that America arms itself to defend against. Who's going to decide if I am crazy or not? Some jumped-up East Coast young doctor in a white coat, whose only weapon is an overpaid lawyer?

SC