U.S.A Second Amendment re-think

C/D. Warren, Just a thought, I wonder if ANY or any mass or singular shootings, have been carried out by a Member of the NRA?, and, are all their members vetted prior to obtaining membership of said organisation?,to make sure they are squeaky clean,

Jim.
Lincoln .7

I think you have it about right, CD. The problem is that it is not easy for us here, to see it from the US perspective. We are making judgements on our terms, which is not relevant.

I wonder if the majority of gun owners, many more times than the 4 or 5 million members of the NRA, do indeed find the NRA’s statement ill-judged and even offensive in some respects.

I actually have much sympathy for the law-abiding gun owners of the US (or the UK) and I tend to agree with the argument that wholesale banning of any activity that may endanger the public is not broadly healthy for any society; of course, when endangering the public reaches the proportions that gun-ownership in the US reaches I think any reasonable person would agree that there is a serious problem.

I do find the arguments of the NRA fatuous and wonder if they really represent the majority of US gun-owners? I’d have more time for them if their leadership showed the slightest contrition towards gun-ownership following the recent tragedy or if their leadership had any suggestions other than arming more people, blaming anybody but gun-owners or recommending deeply intrusive regulation of innocent people; all this while rejecting absolutely any further regulation of innocent gun-owners.

When I worked with the RUC I was told they lost more officers through back problems from prolonged wearing of ballistic vests than they did to the IRA.

(Though a better result for the individual officers – of course)

Moggy

Same as on my old job Moggy, Handcuffs, Radio, Staff, Large flashlight. can of “Pepper”spray, plus pocket book holder, all bits to contain aforesaid made of leather, At the end of the shift, we all had backache, even more so if you had to drive the car with that lot strapped on your belt, you couldn’t sit comfortably.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

The primary purpose of a firearm is to deliver a destructive projectile onto a specific target……..

Regards,

kev35

……..in the course of legitimate and legal hunting, in the course of legitimate and legal recreational and sporting shooting and as a deterrent in the defence of one’s person and/or property.

Q: How many NRA members does it take to change a light bulb?

A: More guns

Of course, but read back a few posts…..I wasn’t actually making that argument. 🙂

I suspect that the NRA would argue that the guns purpose is to ‘deliver a destructive projectile (from the hand of a good guy)…

…into (and out the other side of) a specific target (the bad guy)’.

……. motor vehicles kill as many so why aren’t they banned?

Intent.

The primary purpose of a motor vehicle is the safe transportation of people and/or goods.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to deliver a destructive projectile onto a specific target.

Regards,

kev35

Yes, you are right – it is. I chose an unfortunately inappropriate analogy! My point was that simply “controlling” an activity does not necessarily make it safe. Banning an activity because of the actions of a minority would open the floodgates to ill considered legislation.

Fair enough; I’ll read back through all the posts.

However the similarity between the numbers killed by guns and motor vehicles in the US are often used as a reason why guns should not be banned (or at least more restricted); motor vehicles kill as many so why aren’t they banned?

It was simply an analogy to illustrate a point in response to Kev’s comment earlier in our exchanges.

You can draw an analogy…..that by removing peoples’ automatic right to own and drive a car you will enable some families to hold their children and loved ones close whilst others bury theirs. Ownership of a certificate or a driving license does not remove the ability for its misuse.

If you removed motor vehicles from society the US economy, or any similar economy, would collapse…

…the same is not true if you removed firearms.

When I worked with the RUC I was told they lost more officers through back problems from prolonged wearing of ballistic vests than they did to the IRA.

(Though a better result for the individual officers – of course)

Moggy

Well, I suppose this is one way of addressing the problem :rolleyes:

http://www.bulletblocker.com/bulletproof-school-safety-protection.html

Moggy

I can just imagine a child being in school all day wearing bullet proof Kevlar body protection.
However, the Companies advert is just, (To me) making money off the back of the recent incident, and in very poor taste, but that’s just my opinion.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Well, I suppose this is one way of addressing the problem :rolleyes:

Moggy

Being realistic is usually the best way to address a problem. Hoping for the ideal solution never works, in my experience, laudable though that hope might be.

I see what you are saying Charlie, but how many times do we hear or read headlines stating ‘madman drives SUV through school classrooms killing twenty children and six staff’? the point being that, yes, cars do kill people but largely by accident rather than by intent. The same cannot be said of guns.

Edited to add: There is not an automatic right to own and drive a car. Here in the UK you are (supposed) to hold a provisional license whilst you learn, then to prove competence by testing and then insure and tax your car as well as ensuring it has a valid MOT.

regards,

kev35

In practice that is right but my point is more one of the principle. And with reference to your last comment that was why I wrote ” Ownership of a certificate or a driving license does not remove the ability for its misuse.”

In any case the amendment is never going to be rewritten so Americans are going to have to apply themselves to addressing the real problem.

Well, I suppose this is one way of addressing the problem :rolleyes:

http://www.bulletblocker.com/bulletproof-school-safety-protection.html

Moggy

I see what you are saying Charlie, but how many times do we hear or read headlines stating ‘madman drives SUV through school classrooms killing twenty children and six staff’? the point being that, yes, cars do kill people but largely by accident rather than by intent. The same cannot be said of guns.

Edited to add: There is not an automatic right to own and drive a car. Here in the UK you are (supposed) to hold a provisional license whilst you learn, then to prove competence by testing and then insure and tax your car as well as ensuring it has a valid MOT.

regards,

kev35

You make fair points, Kev, but overlook my comment about the seeming inability to tackle the real problem.

You can draw an analogy with your point that by removing peoples’ automatic right to own and drive a car you will enable some families to hold their children and loved ones close whilst others bury theirs. Ownership of a certificate or a driving license does not remove the ability for its misuse.

Exactly and not just in the USA. You can be “bad” and/or mad as a hatter and still acquire a firearm. It’s back to the real problem Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Why? Why do these tragedies take place? These questions are not on top of the list, sadly. It is always about taking away people’s rights and choices because that’s easier than trying to solve the really difficult problem.

I’ve said it before, with rights come responsibilities, and until that point gets rammed home the gun lobby will never take any notice. In fact they’ll never take any notice anyway. LaPierre wants a National database of those suffering mental illness. Having read his statement I strongly suspect that should such a list ever materialise he might find himself on it.

Yes, you can, as charlie says, be mad or bad and still acquire a firearm. All of us suffer from fleeting moments of madness or badness. The massive difference between us here and the US is that should most of us in the UK suffer from one of these moments, we can’t just reach into the wardrobe and select any one of the semi automatic weapons in our own personal arsenal and nip out to a local school/cinema/college and vent our spleen. Most of us in the UK don’t have the ability to do that however insane we might be. In the US the majority do because of the availability of legally held weapons.

Charlie suggests it is about taking away people’s rights but the problem is that the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment seem to be more important than the rights of twenty children to live to see this Christmas.

The tragedy of all this is that it is a discussion which will take place regularly. Some Americans will be burying their children whilst others will be holding theirs close. Others will sit polishing their weapons and vowing that no Government will ever take their rights away, no Sirree!

Regards,

kev35