I agree. i think if you have not been trained to handle guns properly. then for your safety and the safety of those around you, you shouldn't. but i also think its wise to learn how to be safe around guns.

when i was in 6th grade. one of the local police officers that the locals know well came to school. and brought several guns. and he also brought several things he had shot earlier that day at the gun range to show us what they could do. the one i remember most is a stack of 3 phone books that he shot with his pistol and the front had small holes but the back of the stack was blown to pieces. it was a very good learning experance.

Like that police officer who shot himself in the foot whilst attempting to teach gun safety?

Lol... They chose the wrong cop for that job. but no seriously. Its good to follow those rules to the letter. One time after i borrowed my dad's deer rifle. I went to clean it. I checked to make sure it was empty. I didnt triple check it. So i continue to clean the outside of it. Then i open the chamber to clean it. And there was a round chambered in the gun. My blood turned to ice. I have swore never to make that mistake again.

Hey kids this is a gun and you need to be careful--- BANG!

Take an NRA gun safety course. My dad showed me how to handle guns, and it's basically common sense, or should be at least.

I agree. But sadly many people dont have common sence...

I favor the idea that everyone should have at least a little firearm training, just so nobody's clueless around them.

I think the guy who let his five year old handle a gun unsupervised was an idiot, because at that age, you don't really understand the concept of killing. If you can't grasp that, you shouldn't be holding a potentially lethal implement. People shouldn't blame the guns here, they should blame careless parenting.

I agree. But sadly the news artical is trying to put all the blame on the gun makers. Because it was made for a kid. But the entire thing was the parents fault. They did not even know who had given the boy the gun. And they were letting him play with it like a toy unsupervised.

So. Some of y'all know me. And those that do will have a good idea I've grown up in a country where guns are heavily regulated.
The first thing to bear in mind is that this does not stop criminals having guns. It just means that there are more illegal guns than legal ones.
The second thing to bear in mind is that it does not stop idiots from having guns.

A number of people around me at home know I travel out to the US when I can and so whenever something about a shooting comes up I'll often get asked what my views on it are. Or at least some question about it.

Here's the way I see it.
Regulating guns in the UK as strictly as we did hasn't stopped people getting killed. We still see people getting shot.
Recently they've been talking about banning knives. Because people can stab each other. The laws were tightened which now makes it harder for those who carry knives for legitimate reasons - such as cutting bailing twine - from doing so. If you follow this logic... Then it's hard to define when you should stop banning things.

What I have noticed is that every time a shooting in the US happens both the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, news networks start to ask questions about how the person gained access to the building, about whether the type of weapon they had should have been banned, about whether the clothing they wore allowed them to conceal the weapons and whether therefore certain clothing should be stopped in public locations. Anything that's blaming a non-sentient entity or a corporation rather than laying the blame with a person.

The questions that don't get asked are the ones such as... What made this person go out and do this? How come no-one noticed something was wrong? Or if they did notice why did no-one do anything?

I think the key question is did mass murder rates and homicide rates go down....no you can't prevent every death or every tragedy, but lives saved are lives saved nonetheless. I think Australia at least shows that you can have a massive impact on mass shootings, I'm uncertain on their homicide or suicide rates, but I imagine they follow a similar pattern of reduction. Though I'm not sure if I would support regulation quite as firm as what they enacted.

On the Knife issue....Draw the line at the line between weapon and tool, you probably shouldn't carry around a Kbar, but anything that is designed primarily to perform a noncombat role should be allowed. This is the same logic a use on guns...a hunting rifle or shotgun is a tool, an AR16 is a weapon.

The problem is they don't draw that line between a "weapon" and a "tool".

Just as you can kill someone with an AR-15 you can kill them with a 30-30 Winchester. And with blades you can kill them with a Machete or a pen knife. The difference between something being a weapon and it being a tool is how it's used.

But this is part of the issue I was writing about in my first post. That the response is to say "Quick! Ban everything that looks like it might be a military styled weapon!" Because it's far, far easier to blame an inanimate object than to blame a person. (Especially if that person happens to be a grieving parent).

Yep. And a lot of people think an assult rifle is great home protection. Its not. Say they shot a home robber with an asult rifle. It went through the guy. Through the wall behind him. Into your neighbors house, passed through their daughters bedroom. And imbedded its self in your neighbors fridge. There is a little to much power there. No a small calaber pistol or a shotgun are the best home defence.

You mean my plan to own a Gatling gun for home defence is over the top and too powerful? D:
What about an M249? GPMG 50? Those are good for defending your home, right? ¬.¬

Thank you for your insight. And wow! Banning knives? To be honest i would wear my fixed blade knife on my belt to college classes everyday. I see it and use it as a tool. Sure it works great for self defence. (that guy still crys over that lost finger :P ) but banning knives is bordering on the edge of stupidity. Im glad i grew up in a rural area where carring a knife is common pratice.

This is the issue. You can ban anything you like... People still find a way to:
1. Obtain what you banned illegally and/or use it illegally.
2. Find something else to kill with.

I swear. We could ban everything other than soft, rounded, foam balls... And the first thing would happen is someone would use one to suffocate someone else.

Firstly, I think we shouldn't be marketing guns designed for 5 year olds, and secondly, I don't think we can rely on all parents to be as responsible as yours were when they taught you proper safety.

Also I think we need to be able to agree on some common sense reform, I understand a background check for an online sale or gun show may be inconvenient....but its inconvenient not prohibitive, and isn't a little inconvenience worth it if it saves even 1 life. I think most of us can agree guns should be kept out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

Additionally, if people who enjoy being part of gun culture don't want to have their rights threatened they need to start denouncing the crazy people in their ranks...too often some nutjob goes off the rails about conspiracy and having to fight off the government with his arsenal....and very few gun supporters seem to come out and say ya....that guy with the grenade launchers and the bunker, and the shelves of ammo might not be someone we want representing our movement. Because to be frank....The guy who thinks hes gonna fight a war against the government, or the politicians he disagrees with, or the "colored" or whatever else he thinks is coming to get him, scares the shit out of most of us.....

Finally I would say consider how different groups view this issue...People who live in rural areas seem to love guns, people in urban areas largely hate them. This is because they have drastically different experiences....for the rural its a way of life, a tool, a protection, a heirloom. For the urban, its a weapon of death, wielded by the insane and the criminal to commit senseless murder on a mass scale and to wage wars for territory and drugs.

I seriously doubt there are that many companies that specifically market guns for 5 year olds. (Although if there are any I would like to add the subtitle "Only in America"). The issue here seems to be a gun, bought any legally owned by adults, left where a child could access it.

Whilst you mention that you don't think that all parents can be relied on to be responsible... Well, how is this any different than leaving the bleach, or the drain cleaner, or the motor oil, or any other number of harmful things we have around the house where a child can get to them? Do we say for all of those things "oh, well, we can't rely on some parents to take proper precautions so we'll ban everything"?

What I would be also intrigued to see is the numbers of people, say, killed in accidents with firearms and accidents with motor vehicles. I wonder which receives the most attention. Yet a dangerous driver can be even more destructive than someone with a handgun. (The same thing goes for numbers of injuries/deaths whilst DUI/fleeing from the cops/just being plain criminally stupid behind the wheel).

Yes, I would agree that additional checks should be brought in. But don't bring it to the level of the UK. There are ways to own firearms here, however, some of the laws around them are insane. For rifles you have to account for every round purchased. (For shotguns you don't though). Even our Olympic shooting teams have to train abroad because they are not legally allowed to train with some of the weapons here (notably the handguns).

You mention that we shouldn't be giving guns to criminals or the insane... But please do tell me how we're defining criminal and insane? Anyone who has ever committed any sort of crime? Which would mean that a person stopped for, say, jaywalking or speeding should also be banned from ever owning a gun?
"Insane" is even harder to define. Do you ban anyone who's ever been on any medication from owning a firearm of any sort? What if they were on anti-depressants for a short time due to the way their life had been, but that's now changed and they're no longer on anti-depressants. Are they banned from owning any sort of gun?
What about someone who should be on medication but has stopped taking it? Are they allowed a gun or not?

Now here's the real question.
If you're going to excuse leaving a gun somewhere a five year old can get to is as "oh, well, we can't expect everyone to be responsible can we!" Then how are we going to control whether someone with a criminal record, or falls into whatever definition of insane you wish to use, gets ahold of a firearm legally owned by a family member or friend? Do we excuse that in the same way of not being able to expect everyone to be responsible?

I agree with you that things need to be done.
I just don't see any solution that might actually work as being a simple one.

The last 3 firearms i bought i had to get a background check first. With out that. They would not let me have it. And another thing is there is a lot of backdoor gun trading. I own 6 guns atm. Only 2 are actally in my name. My cousin owns 14, 4 of witch are assult rifles, 5 of witch are old war rifles. I think out of all those guns only one is in his name. The goverment cant track them all. Thats how a lot of "bad" people get guns. Or more offten they steal them.

But to behonest i dont want them to stop the back door trading. The government dosent need to track every gun. And micro manage all who have them. 98% of all gun owners are safe and responciable people. Its the one percent that abuses our right and affects the nation.

The company that made the gun that killed the girl mentioned above was a "Cricket Rifle" specifically marketed to young children

Cricket Rifle: Add: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EJmsydrCAQ

I would say that if you already had to go through background checks then whats the problem,...is it that bad for every gun purchased to have to go through the same check you currently go through. I just don't understand how its worth even 1 life to not be inconvenienced...no you can't stop every illegal sale....but it would certainly save some people and I think those lives are worth having to wait on a background check for.

Firstly for criminal I think any crime involving a firearm, anyone with a domestic abuse record, or any felony at all.

For insane thats harder for me to personally set limits on but I'm sure that their are mental health professionals who could help set the required guidelines.

in regards to drunk drivers....we do put those people in jail...they don't have to kill anyone just getting caught drinking and driving lands you in jail.

on stolen, or taken guns.... firstly I would say you cant stop every gun death....but we can reduce them...however if you wanted to address this personal responsibility problem the only way to do it is with a registry, so we could hold people who loan out or don't lock up their guns responsible for crimes committed with them....but such legislation will never pass because too many people are convinced the government would use such a registry to bust down their door and take their guns.

Finally I would say being in the UK your view is on the side of someone heavily regulated. I imagine their are things you would see as common sense gun law that here in the states is considered an unacceptable violation of rights. you have to keep in mind we have military assault rifles, sub machine guns, grenade launchers, and all other manner of deadly weapon floating around.

Read my comment below about registering guns on durvals comment.

Actualy i learned to shoot first with a "child" shotgun. It was shorter and lighter. So i could carry and use it. I got it when i was nine. I have no problem with a company making children sized guns. But i think to purchase those guns, the parents must take some gun safety classes. (unless they have a conciled handgun licens. Or hunters safety certifacation) that way the parents are more responciable about teaching their children.

On another note this whole

"even if its illegal people will do it anyway" argument could be used to say we need no laws at at

people kill even though murder is illegal

people steal

people rape

people commit financial crime

but all of these things are illegal because then we can put those people in jail if those things are illegal.

just because someone will break the law or try and find ways around it isn't a reason not to have law in the first place.

Indeed they do.
But for some reason when it comes to firearms people try to put forwards the argument that if we ban them then there will be no more gun crime... Which just isn't true.

I don't think any sensible person thinks you can eliminate gun crime fully....but reduction in crime is possible....and reduction saves lives.

Here's the other issue.
Murder is illegal - that is an action taken by a person.
Rape is illegal - that is an action taken by a person.
Stealing is illegal - that is an action taken by a person.
Fraud is illegal - that is an action taken by a person.

A gun is an object. Left by itself it will do nothing but sit there (and possibly rust/corrode if out in the open). In order for it to do anything someone has to take an action with it.
A piece of string is the same - unless someone picks it up and uses it as a garotte.
A knife is a kitchen implement until someone picks it up and uses it to stab someone else.
A car is a vehicle used for getting from A to B until someone uses it to run someone else down.
A brick is used for building a house. Unless you throw it at someone (or something).

If we follow the logic that any object that can be used for a nefarious purpose should be banned then I suspect that we would not have a lot of objects around us.

Objects by themselves are not inherently good or bad (other than possibly certain versions of Windows. ME and CE spring to mind).
Actions taken by a person can be so defined - Rape is always going to be deplorable.

But a brick has a purpose, a string or a knife has a purpose....the only purpose of an AR-15 assault rifle is to kill humans as effectively as possible.....thats what its designed to do it is not a tool....it is a weapon. To give one person the power to end dozens of lives so easily is deplorable to me....no one person should be able to walk into a building and do that....for home defense it is excessive, for target shooting it is excessive...but for killing it is a near perfect implement of mass murder.

And on your object vs action argument....I would say many drugs and chemicals are illegal because they follow this same distinction of having no significant civilian purpose while at the same time causing great harm.

Regarding drugs. I've heard that argument before.

But take certain kinds of mushroom (and a number of other plants as well). Growing them is completely legal.
What is not legal is the action of processing them or the action of holding and using the product of this processing.
At least over here the offence is "possession", "possession with intent to supply", or "being under the effects of narcotics" - each of which is an action taken by a person.


You also say that the only purpose of an AR-15 is to kill people. What if I enjoy shooting and want to go and shoot at targets? Is this not also a valid use that does not involve killing people?
(Also, interestingly enough, I was told by someone I know in Australia that a variant of the AR-15 there is used for culling animals which suggests it has additional uses beyond that.)

The same argument that you are putting forwards is that we should ban all race cars because someone could take them on the road and kill people with it by using that race car in a way that it shouldn't be. But equally there are people that enjoy taking the car to a suitable location - in this case a race track - and using it there.

The same argument applied to fireworks would say that we ban all fireworks - they can and have been used (both accidentally and deliberately) to kill people. Instead we say, although perhaps more politely, "Don't be bloody stupid. Don't point the firework at someone when you light it. Don't stand with your crotch over the Roman candle when it's lit. And don't approach a lit firework."

You will note that both race cars and fireworks are also objects that are purely for enjoyment.

Sale and use of fireworks is banned in many US cities.

The vast majority of race cars are not street legal in the US.

Yes you can't make a plant that grows naturally fully illegal because it can grow without the aid of a person....but the act of manufacturing a certain type gun...is an act taken by a person, selling a gun to a felon is an act taken by a person....owning a weapon of war and not keeping it locked in a safe is an act taken by a person....your trying to base an argument on this point with pure semantics.

As for your AR-15 target shooting......target shoot with a different gun....the argument that "I can use a weapon of war as toy for my own amusement" is a recreational use not a functional one.....illegal drugs also have recreational uses. Or to put you more on the spot...."Is the fun you have with you AR-15 worth the lives of more the 20 kindergartners? or the innocent bystanders who die in Chicago drive by shootings....or the police officers who die during a drug raid..?" because that is the cost of people having free access ti such devistating weapons.

In regards to Australia, you could cull animals with any number of less dangerous firearms....it is as it is with target shooting "excessive" and considering the strictness of the 1996 gun reform in Australia that information is either very old....or that AR-15 variant has been stripped down to a point that it is no longer capable of so easily being used for mass murder.

Assault weapons can serve a purpose other than the killing of people. take my granfather, he is a cattleman and ranch owner. in his truck rides an SKS assault rifle. its not to shoot people nor cause any harm to anyone. its actualy to protect his property. you see where we live feral hogs are a problem a big problem its estimated that a single hog does $1400 worth of property damage in its life time. and each female hog can perduce more than 30 offspring in a year. and by the end of that year the hogs first litter is also giving birth. so in one year a female hog can infact perduce up to 70 children and grandchildren. now estimate that each of them can cause $1400 of property damage. you are looking at the potential of $98000 worth of property damages.

needless to say hogs are a big problem to land and crop owners. so on my grandfathers property there is over a dozen hog traps to help control the population. but thats not enough. so he carries an assault rifle that he can use to quickly put 20 shots down range. and each one of them has an accurate and lethal punch. that way when he sees a group of hogs he can at least take down 2 or 3 of them before they get away.

yes i know an assualt's primary purpose is to serve as a weapon against humanity. but i just wanted to let you know that they too can serve as a tool, when used responsibly. and yes our freezers are full of hog meat. my family believes in you eat what you kill. if you dont want to eat it... then dont kill it.

and also just so you know how bad the hog problem is. Farms and ranches will get together and buy a helicopter and hire professional marksmen and fly around just to take hogs out from the air. also game wardens and US park services also do that to try to control the wild hog population. and they all use assault rifles.

Which, I believe, is a very similar reason to their use in Australia is for larger animals which are a problem to take down otherwise.

What we seem to keep coming back to is the same point.
Any firearm can be used for an illegal purpose. As can many other objects. But they can also be used completely safely and legally.
It's the person using it that is the issue, not the object itself, and just perhaps something needs to be done about the people who use them illegally...

I keep coming back to the same point which is this....we can make everyone significantly safer, without seriously impacting the lives of gun-owners. Some level of reform is necessary it is wholly unacceptable that we are willing to allow the number of people that die every day to gun violence, and the sheer astonishing number of mass shooting that have taken place in the last 2 years.