I did a gun-control petition

You might want to go further.

Following a similar tragedy here, 16 years ago, in which a man armed with 4 hand guns and 700 rounds of ammo walked around a primary school and killed 16 children who were between 5 and 6 years old and their teacher we passed a law banning handgun ownership. There can be no reason for owning a handgun other than to kill people, and killing people is murder, so therefore what possible reason is there for letting ordinary people, who may be mentally unstable, angry or temporarily deranged own handguns?
 
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html

An interesting read from our former PM. I didn't like this bloke for many reasons, but I agreed completely with his decision in 1996. And I was a young country boy who loved shooting stuff.
 
well if your petition had been responded to before this latest shooting, it still wouldn't have done squat. the shooter came from a well off family and the guns were purchased by his mother.

I came from a relatively poor family, my father had a pair of pistols and some rifles. he always taught me to respect guns and to do the right thing. the right thing would have been to "murder" that nut jobs ass on the spot, be it with a gun, a large stapler or your mitts with your last dying breath if needs be.

I don't understand why we see so much outrage at this when our government murders children by the scores with automatic weapons, bombs and drones. it's that kind of a loss of respect for life that has led us to this place if you ask me.

I may be a male, with no children and much less than 50k in assets. but my block is safe from this kind of thing happening because I would put a nice hole right between anyone's eyes that tried to endanger me, or the families that I don't even know in my neighborhood. I would give my life to make sure that happened.

*edit
so not from a well off family, but the guns still came from a female parent.
 
In 2010 there were 8775 deaths by fire arms in the US. In that same year, there were 10228 drunk driving deaths.

I don't see many people seriously considering banning Alcohol or automobiles, but thats clearly a larger danger than guns. As an American, I accept the risks that come with our freedoms. I might be killed by a gun, but I also have the right to defend my self with a gun if I choose.

Also on friday, in another school 22 children were stabbed by a mentaly unstable man in Henag China. How many of you would also advocate banning knives?

I think the real answer here is better care for the mentaly unstable.

Ultimately, As an American I understand that I am responsable for my own safety. As an American, I accept that as part of the cost of my freedom. Guns, Knives, Cars, fertalizer and Diesel bombs, jet liners packed with fuel and victums. The risks come from many directions, and I'm not safe except by my own vigalence. But I wouldn't want it any other way.

I'm sure those who haven't grown up as Americans have your own cultural values and beliefs. Don't use this tragety as an excuse to push your social standards on us.
 
Drunkskunk said:
In 2010 there were 8775 deaths by fire arms in the US. In that same year, there were 10228 drunk driving deaths.

I don't see many people seriously considering banning Alcohol or automobiles, but thats clearly a larger danger than guns. As an American, I accept the risks that come with our freedoms. I might be killed by a gun, but I also have the right to defend my self with a gun if I choose.

Also on friday, in another school 22 children were stabbed by a mentaly unstable man in Henag China. How many of you would also advocate banning knives?

I think the real answer here is better care for the mentaly unstable.

Ultimately, As an American I understand that I am responsable for my own safety. As an American, I accept that as part of the cost of my freedom. Guns, Knives, Cars, fertalizer and Diesel bombs, jet liners packed with fuel and victums. The risks come from many directions, and I'm not safe except by my own vigalence. But I wouldn't want it any other way.

I'm sure those who haven't grown up as Americans have your own cultural values and beliefs. Don't use this tragety as an excuse to push your social standards on us.
Click to expand...

In the UK in 2010 we had 1,850 deaths from car accidents, 636 homicides and 250 drink drive deaths. Out of those homicides 60 were as a result of firearms, out of the car accident deaths 250 were from drink driving.

So, if I were to make exactly the same comparison as you in your first line, then in 2010 there were 60 deaths by firearms in the UK. In that same year there were 250 deaths from drink driving.

The population of the UK is around 63.1 million, the population of the US is around 315 million.
 
This is a serious issue that needs to have all opinions considered, but...I recall a few years ago when a drug mob in Mexico tried to extort money from a local casino, and when the casino didn't pay up, they blocked the exits when it was crowded and threw in some gasoline. Many died that day. In India, there is a shocking amount of assaults on women by throwing acid in their faces, and women are not allowed to carry guns there (if they could even afford one).

I'd love for the US to be a shining example of how our people don't need to carry guns to protect themselves...and to be honest...I don't have a simple answer to this complex and troubling problem, but...I have a gun.
 
Jeremy Harris said:
Drunkskunk said:
In 2010 there were 8775 deaths by fire arms in the US. In that same year, there were 10228 drunk driving deaths.

I don't see many people seriously considering banning Alcohol or automobiles, but thats clearly a larger danger than guns. As an American, I accept the risks that come with our freedoms. I might be killed by a gun, but I also have the right to defend my self with a gun if I choose.

Also on friday, in another school 22 children were stabbed by a mentaly unstable man in Henag China. How many of you would also advocate banning knives?

I think the real answer here is better care for the mentaly unstable.

Ultimately, As an American I understand that I am responsable for my own safety. As an American, I accept that as part of the cost of my freedom. Guns, Knives, Cars, fertalizer and Diesel bombs, jet liners packed with fuel and victums. The risks come from many directions, and I'm not safe except by my own vigalence. But I wouldn't want it any other way.

I'm sure those who haven't grown up as Americans have your own cultural values and beliefs. Don't use this tragety as an excuse to push your social standards on us.
Click to expand...

In the UK in 2010 we had 1,850 deaths from car accidents, 636 homicides and 250 drink drive deaths. Out of those homicides 60 were as a result of firearms, out of the car accident deaths 250 were from drink driving.

So, if I were to make exactly the same comparison as you in your first line, then in 2010 there were 60 deaths by firearms in the UK. In that same year there were 250 deaths from drink driving.

The population of the UK is around 63.1 million, the population of the US is around 315 million.
Click to expand...

Wow, all packed together like that on an island ! Yeah, with times hard like they are and rich and poor packed so close together I can see why they would not want handguns in the hands of people over there.
 
Jeremy Harris said:
There can be no reason for owning a handgun other than to kill people,
Click to expand...

Nonsense. there is ( or was in the UK) a very big target pistol shooting community. And then ban on handguns has done nothing to reduce the number of deaths caused my the misuse of them. In fact since the ban, there number of shootings with handguns has increased. Not that I imagine the ban caused the increase..though maybe it did in a way make guns more accessible to the criminal fraternity.

If you owned a few custom target guns worth upwards of a couple of thousand pounds each and then when the ban came in, in the UK I believe the owners were compensated for a couple of hundred each, even the most law abiding person, who has just had his totally lawful sport destroyed, may think twice about giving them up, or other wise disposing of them in a more profitable way.

Bans in the UK have done nothing to reduce the use of handguns by the criminals.

Even a total ban on all guns of any sort would not change the criminal use of them. It is rather like banning the public ownership of cars, because people use them for ram raiding, running people over, speeding and as get away vehicles in other crimes.

I agree something has to be done..but a ban or tighter licencing won't make a blind bit of difference to shootings like this
 
reality check. no one is passing any gun laws. not any time soon anyways. not with the current congress.

to pass this gun law you first need to pass another law. one that puts penalties for irresponsible action on politicians. i wish we had such a law here in Canada. but at least our politicians are responsible enough not to take it to such an extreme. your guys are treating obstructionism as a competition, they'd never pass the law anyways. they might pass a resolution to make obstructionism an Olympic sport. to reflect the fact that they treat it as a professional one .

back to gun control. the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms one, was not that written so that the citizens may protect themselves from an oppressive government that is no longer responsible to, nor representative of the people? kinda sounds like the problem with congress to me. now get a bunch of citizens to show up on the steps of congress sporting firearms, exercising their 2nd amendment rights to force some change in congress and I betcha congress would pass an emergency gun control law without any debate or obstructionism. do it on the spot.

i guess what I'm trying to say is. if i was an American i would sign your petition. I would sign it to show support that something must change. knowing that it will not change anything right now, but it may change future attitudes. and guns are the issue. cars, knives and other tools in the hands of deranged people may kill just as many. but cars, knives and other tools have more utilitarian, normal everyday uses. Guns on the other hand are limited to either target shooting or killing. nothing else. not very useful in any other situations. the comparison of the misuse of common everyday items as a weapon, to an actual weapon is misguided and offensive. everyday items used to kill are not being used as intended. guns being used to kill are being used exactly as intended.

I agree with gun control. i did not say a gun BAN. guns should be controlled so that they are not easily misused. but they do not need to be banned. if you can demonstrate a legitimate use or need, access should be allowed. but call it a ban or a control, it would not likely change what happened yesterday.

and don't confuse things. Britain and Australia have gun BANS not controls. In Britain their Olympic pistol team practices in and belongs to clubs in France because they can not legally use even a highly specialized target gun at home.

good luck with your petition.

rick
ps. i also own a couple of guns. always have. but i have never been tempted to take one to school or to work.
 
A gun is only a tool which makes job easier, murder is a problem of the human heart. Many people are often murdered by other methods. A handgun is the best tool for self defense. Law abiding people should be able to defend themselves, and exercise that right by carrying concealed weapons; especially from misguided people who wish to take their rights away. :evil:
 
NeilP said:
Jeremy Harris said:
There can be no reason for owning a handgun other than to kill people,
Click to expand...

Nonsense. there is ( or was in the UK) a very big target pistol shooting community. And then ban on handguns has done nothing to reduce the number of deaths caused my the misuse of them. In fact since the ban, there number of shootings with handguns has increased. Not that I imagine the ban caused the increase..though maybe it did in a way make guns more accessible to the criminal fraternity.

If you owned a few custom target guns worth upwards of a couple of thousand pounds each and then when the ban came in, in the UK I believe the owners were compensated for a couple of hundred each, even the most law abiding person, who has just had his totally lawful sport destroyed, may think twice about giving them up, or other wise disposing of them in a more profitable way.

Bans in the UK have done nothing to reduce the use of handguns by the criminals.

Even a total ban on all guns of any sort would not change the criminal use of them. It is rather like banning the public ownership of cars, because people use them for ram raiding, running people over, speeding and as get away vehicles in other crimes.

I agree something has to be done..but a ban or tighter licencing won't make a blind bit of difference to shootings like this
Click to expand...

OK, I was too brief in that quip and missed the tiny number of sport pistol shooters (a few hundred people in the UK, out of a population of around 63 million) who did have a legitimate reason for owning a handgun. Target pistols are a very far cry from semiautomatic handguns, though, which is what I was thinking of at the time I wrote that.

The incidence of gun crime in the UK is staggering low compared to the US. Only 60 people, out of a population of around 63 million, were killed with guns in the UK in 2010. That figure is actually inflated above the norm, too, as it includes the 12 shotgun victims of the gunman in Cumbria, an unusual incident here.

This quote from Wikipedia (with references that look OK), sums things up well, I think: "Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates can be found in developing countries and those with political instability".
 
Well I think it would have been a lot more than a few hundred, in the UK before the handgun ban, but since they were a minority then it seems Ok to act against them. it seems to be only ethnic and disable minorities that get protection these days :shock:
At the end of the day for governments it is all about keeping their jobs and satisfying the majority, regardless of the real facts.

And then once they have a law it can be used as it was never intended, as in this letter from the Telegraph a few months back in the UK

The Editor

The Daily Telegraph

30th November 2012



Dear Sir



Sgt. Danny Nightingale



Of course the prosecution and jailing of Sgt. Nightingale was an absolute disgrace and gross injustice and thank goodness he has been released. But two wrongs don’t make a right ... treating the poor chap as a special case because he is a good soldier makes a thoroughly bad situation a bit worse.



What about all the other people who have not committed, or intended to commit, any anti-social act, but have had their lives turned upside down because the UK Firearms Act is a terrible, vicious law? Like Sgt. Morgan Cook, who had hoped to shoot for England in the Olympics, grandmother Gail Cochrane, for keeping a family heirloom for 29 years without any ammunition, Andrew Richardson, for forgetting about a revolver that he hadn’t seen for 20 years, or Paul Clarke, for handing in a shotgun that he found in his garden to the police, to name a few.



Making simple gun possession a serious, statutory criminal offence with big terms of mandatory imprisonment, even in the complete absence of any anti-social act or intent, makes it absolutely inevitable that decent people like Nightingale will end up in jail.



It is easy to argue that the police should have had a quiet word in his ear; or the CPS should not have prosecuted because “it would not be in the public interest”; or the trial Judge should have used his power to treat the circumstances as “exceptional”. But those arguments really amount to distorting the law so that some people are treated more favorably than others – which, of course, absolutely undermines a fundamental principle of British justice, that the law must be applied equally to everyone.



What is badly needed is a hugely better/less awful Firearms Law.



Once upon a time ... the principle of mens rea, which required the prosecution to prove that the accused had “a guilty mind”, was a powerful bedrock of the British criminal justice system. But proving real guilt can take a bit of time and skill. So, when there are far too many laws and vast numbers of people to prosecute ... it is so much easier to have absolute or statutory offences ...
Click to expand...
 
NeilP said:
Well I think it would have been a lot more than a few hundred, in the UK before the handgun ban, but since they were a minority then it seems Ok to act against them. it seems to be only ethnic and disable minorities that get protection these days :shock:
Click to expand...

In 1996, before the handgun ban, there were 133,600 Firearms Certificates in England and Wales. In 2005 (so after all the 6 year validity certificates from 1996 had expired and the latest data I could find) there were 126,400. Given that some people will have had more than one certificate (I believe that one was required for each weapon of that category) then I may have been a little off with "a few hundred", but not by a massive amount. It looks as if maybe "a few thousand" would have been a better phrase, but still a very tiny number out of the whole population.
 
Exactly, a minority, therefore they don't really count as far as the government is concerned.
With the NRA in the US they ( at the moment) are probably not a miniority to be ignored.
The UK government does things to apease the majority to make it look like they are doing something, despite the fact that it has no effect on criminals, and inconveniences and costs a miniority money
 
Jeremy Harris said:
In the UK in 2010 we had 1,850 deaths from car accidents, 636 homicides and 250 drink drive deaths. Out of those homicides 60 were as a result of firearms, out of the car accident deaths 250 were from drink driving.

So, if I were to make exactly the same comparison as you in your first line, then in 2010 there were 60 deaths by firearms in the UK. In that same year there were 250 deaths from drink driving.

The population of the UK is around 63.1 million, the population of the US is around 315 million.
Click to expand...

You have 1/5th the people, and 1/20th the drunk driving deaths. I think the problem isn't the guns, the cars, the knives, or the other weapons we have at hand, it's the attitude of the people weilding them and the culture that supports them.

We're a dangerous people, This is a dangerous place. Most of us are ok with that. The rewards of personal freedom justify the risk of dieing tragicly tomorow. We do have some large underlying social issues that need to be solved, and that is going to take a country of 315 million to come together with a united will to fix those issues. More laws aren't going to solve our underlying issues.
 
I hope your gun petition doesn't take.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

The district of Columbia has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but they also have double the gun crime rate and triple the murder rate as the average of other states in the USA.

In Utah and Texas, gun ownership rates are rather high and rather lax; but there is less gun crime than in California, where laws are rather strict.

In Mexico, it is illegal for a citizen to own a gun, so only the drug gangs have guns.

mexican-drug-cartel-soldiers-e1280771249438.jpg


I'm sorry, but your first instinct to limit murder by taking guns out of the hands of citizens who own them legally might have the opposite effect you're looking for. Shooters love unarmed targets. When they can't get a gun, they'll get a knife. When they can't get a knife, they'll use a car bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011)

I understand your good intention but we need to look at our society first. A heavily armed society like Switzerland has about 1/8th the gun crime per capita compared to our country. It's not the weapon, it's the intent that is the problem.
 
I am not a gun owner but a lot of people around here are and some of them always carry.
I like the idea that the bad guys can not be sure who is packing.

Mass murdering crazy nut cases do happen over and over again.
No real answer to that one.
 
I just want to throw this out there for a different perspective:
Drunkskunk said:
...We're a dangerous people, This is a dangerous place. Most of us are ok with that. The rewards of personal freedom justify the risk of dieing tragicly tomorow. ....
Click to expand...

Think about it. If the USA went "rogue," who is going to stop us? Think deeply about "shock and awe..."

Now think: Is the only way out successful internal revolt? Does the rest of the world really want total disarmament of the law abiding US citizen? This is why weakening of The Posse Comitatus Act is so significant.

... something to ponder.
 
Bummer, let's arming civil by carry gun conceal and criminals rate would be lower rate. I'm gun owner and have assault weapons. I was planning to teach my 2 children with the gun safety and home protection.

What if the US goes outlaw and who will protect you. Like what happened in Syria and their government turned against their own civil even killing innocent children and women. :-(
 
zzoing said:
i wrote this petition on whitehouse.gov, prospectively allowing only females, males with more than 50K assets, and parents to have guns, and outlawing automatics to be held outside of a safe box. please pass it on.

http://wh.gov/RpKz
Click to expand...

I wish you only the worst of luck with your efforts. :wink:
 
chroot said:
Like what happened in Syria and their government turned against their own civil even killing innocent children and women. :-(
Click to expand...

Also happened in China, also happened in Germany, also happened in a lot of places.. all conveniently before govt doled out some major violence on it's citizens.

The federal government has been stepping up it's efforts to become a police state for the past decade. Things like the NDAA make me nervous. They have done this with no indication of a need for greater policing.

I am way more worried about my govt than some gun nut down the street. Government is the biggest murderer ever.

[youtube]LgraVpwiM6Y[/youtube]

I'm not a big fan of Alex Jones ( bit of a crackpot ) but he has a great point here.
 
The more you make a news story out of it, the more wack jobs get the idea to do it into their head. It's not the guns, it's the wackos and criminals.
 
An unarmed man is just a subject and is therefor subject to all the bad acts that come from being unable to protect himself, family, neighbors and country from the insanity of humankind or an unrighteous government. Once again guns, cars and other inanimate objects seldom kill people. People kill people some for selfish and vile reasons and some for protection from the selfish and vile. It is very easy to legally poses a concealed weapon in the majority of the states in the US. It is good to live in a country that allows us to do so and to protect those we love and the freedoms we love even to bloodshed as it should be. The media sensationalizes most bad stories they can get their hands on unless it serves them in some way to do otherwise like protect a presidential election. They make their money doing so. This is in direct opposition to what was back when they reported the good and the bad. It's just a form of propaganda to make the world and the citizens of our own country believe we are evil and out of control and the government needs to step in and tell us what is right and good ect ect... rant rant rant...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

methods
Independence Day - Guidance for Celebration
Replies
20
Views
2,802
methods
methods
Reid Welch
"Extreme MY1018" archival, closed out
Replies
11
Views
17,855
GIGATT
G
jondoh
Peak Oil Porn (or why you should have an ev TODAY!)
Replies
10
Views
4,389
sabrewalt
S
Back
Top