Another school shooting in the US

Thankfully, even NRA endorsed senators are starting to come out in support of a ban on automatic assault rifles...

Cracks in the NRA stronghold: pro-gun senators say ‘enough is enough’
Jane C. Timm, @janestreet
10:05 am on 12/18/2012

Tasha Devoe, left, of Lawrence, Mass., joins a march to the National Rifle Association headquarters on Capitol Hill in Washington Monday, Dec. 17, 2012.(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) (School Shooting Gun Control)
“I believe every American has Second Amendment rights. The ability to hunt is part of our culture. I have an NRA rating of an ‘A,’ but enough is enough,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., told WBBT, a local CNN affiliate in Richmond yesterday, following the tragic shootings in Newtown, Conn. on Friday.
“The status quo isn’t acceptable,” Warner said Monday according to the Washington Post. “I’ve got three daughters. They asked me on Friday evening, ‘Dad, what are you gonna do about this?’ There’s got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition.”
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va, a lifetime NRA member another A-rated politician, said he was open to an assault rifle ban on Morning Joe yesterday.
“Seeing the massacre of so many innocent children has changed everything,” he said. “Everything has to be on the table.”
Red-state, NRA-supported politicians speaking in favor of gun control will have a lot more effect on the debate than someone like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been very vocal in his support of gun control for years, said Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough
“A guy like Joe Manchin that grew up in this culture, that understands this culture, will be able to say, ‘hey everyone, here’s the deal, they’re not coming for our guns, I’ll be the first to stand in the way of my door and not let the government come for my guns or your guns, but I don’t have a 10 mm Glock cause when I take my kids or grandkids out deer hunting, I don’t need a Glock or a Bushmaster to take them down or protect my house” Scarborough said. “These are the people who will sway the debate.”
Harry Reid, D-Nev., a politician the NRA nearly endorsed in 2010 for his pro-gun voting record, also spoke out yesterday afternoon in favor of additional gun control laws.
“No one law can erase evil. No policy can prevent a determined madman from committing a senseless act of violence,” Reid said. “But we need to accept the reality that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens.”
Click to expand...
 
estebanrey said:
If you need proof that the NRA are propaganda merchants just look at this video....

They are using footage and soundbites from the protests over the ban on Fox Hunting and pretending they are marching for gun rights (you can see by their signs it's about hunting and not guns).

Who's running the NRA, Joseph Goebbels?
Click to expand...

They are protests against the gun bane after dunblane :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
 
Strife212 said:
They are protests against the gun bane after dunblane :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
Click to expand...

No they weren't. Look at the placards they are holding, they refer to hunting, not one says anything about guns.

For start, the laws brought in after Dunblaine did not outlaw guns for hunting, so why would people protest about it? Your link says the aftermath of Dunblaine was ban on handguns, since when were hand guns used for hunting?
 
Strife212 said:
"I'm worried because I might not be able to go shooting with my dad"
Click to expand...

His dad probably told him 5 minutes earlier..."First it's fox hunting, next they'll ban shooting pheasant.....rant rant rant"

Here look, this protest was over the ban on fox hunting, not the handgun ban which the NRA implies the march is for.

o6k38k.png
 
Last edited:
Personally I think it's sad that anyone should even have to consider having armed vets or teachers in school. No child should have to go to school and be fearful of having someone turn up with a gun and no parent should either.

Gun ownership needs to be tightly controlled, psychological profiling needs to go hand in hand with legitimate reasons for owning a weapon and self defense is not one of them. The Second Amendment is an archaic part of American history that should remain there. Americans are just too thick to realise it. Similarly with the Obamacare, the cry of "but it infringes on our constitutional rights!" goes out regardless of the fact that it would protect countless families from a lifelong debt if they are caught without insurance and get very unwell.

Far too much of the American constitution is cover for ignorance and stupidity and unfortunately we have seen the result of this in a whole stack of children and teachers dying.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before but I'll put it here anyway:

When people argue as to whether hardline gun control has any effect then they need look no further than Australia. On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
Click to expand...

Also in New Zealand in order to own a gun you must go through the following:
A full mental health/status check.
A firearms licence.
The police pay you a visit at home to interview you.
In order to get a pistol three people need to write letters to the police to vouch for your character.
Finally there is a 6 month probationary period and then at the end of this the Police Area Commander must sign off your licence.

In the good ol' US of A - you have a 15 day waiting period whilst they do a criminal check on you then you're free to buy a gun.
 
Last edited:
DGarfield said:
They should ban guns in USA.
Click to expand...

Never going to happen especially in the southern states of America .. if obama even suggested on trying to pass a bill to ban guns , there will be a civil war the best thing obama can do is try to pass a bill that will make it harder for people to own guns and review everybody who owns a gun but even that is unlikely.
 
DGarfield said:
They should ban guns in USA.
Click to expand...

That isn't ever going to happen and isn't going to solve the problem.

The problem is the ease of obtaining one and the prevelence of them in the family home.

There is nothing wrong with american citizens having firearms suitable for home protection (eg a hand gun) or having high calibre hunting rifles providing the sale of them is properly restricted and all this state / county / federal level discrepancy in the law is binned.
 
I saw a tweet from the NRA that was re-tweeted by someone else (I assume to highlight the tweet) that said:

"Who is buying their loved ones a gun this Christmas?"

I mean WTF?
 
MrLOL said:
There is nothing wrong with american citizens having firearms suitable for home protection (eg a hand gun) or having high calibre hunting rifles providing the sale of them is properly restricted and all this state / county / federal level discrepancy in the law is binned.
Click to expand...

I can think of at least 27 people who might disagree...
 
DisrupTor75 said:
Was just idly looking at facebook when i spotted this.

20682-454249871301781-1343825447-n.jpg


Can you think of a worse idea? I am all for these vets finding work outside the military but this would be a terrible thing if it ever came to pass.
Click to expand...

I think it's a great idea.

I mean it's not like there is a long record of mental illness affecting ex-soldiers is there?

Yeah, what America wants is heavily armed, Gulf War Syndrome suffering soldiers in schools having flashbacks.

What could go wrong?
 
They are a nation obsessed by them.

Overhauling gun laws to try and prevent this from happening is only going to partially solve the problem.

The major problem is their culture and thats going to take decades to change. They still regard guns as everyday items.

Did you see the video Woody's Gamertag did of his house ? he just dropped in "this is my gun cabinet" which was chock full of guns like it was perfectly normal thing to have !

NeilFawcett said:
I can think of at least 27 people who might disagree...
Click to expand...


Surely it would be 54 people ? But thats besides the point. They won't get a complete ban on all weapons and it won't stop it happening again.

America needs to overhaul its gun laws. The ease with which children and those in an angry disposition can get hold of assault rfiles and like needs to be addressed. But a complete ban is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
They won't get a complete ban on all weapons and it won't stop it happening again.
Click to expand...

It's not about stopping it ever happening again, EVER! It's about stopping some people who would have done it and moreover reducing the number of times it happens.

This argument that because you can't absolutely guarantee you can eliminate something completely means you might as well have a free for all and accept it happening regularly is just odd logic.

They have speed limits in America don't they? Now they don't absolutely prevent road deaths but you don't argue speed limits are pointless and let people drive however fast they want.
 
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
I can think of at least 27 people who might disagree...
Click to expand...


As I said earlier I think very restrictive rules should be bought in regarding ammunition, I.e 10rds per household of a specified caliber for self defence and bolt action rifles only with. Limit on rounds for hunting purposes. Any target shoothing ammo to be purchased at ranges Nd counted out and counted in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom