US Gun laws are "License to murder"

As concerning as this is to most people, We can all agree that some people are good for the responsabilty of a gun or guns, & there are alot that are not. The same can be said for people being parents. There is a level of accountabity for the things we do & the things we are responsable for. Not all are ment to have or be a part of those important & valued parts of life. It has been my understanding that, If You don't try to be a part of the aforementioned things in life You can not fully understand there true value. You intern would be lost on the expiriance & importance of them in your life. Not all can Or want the responsablity. So it is left to the ones that will claim it. I Believe it can be made better with Education, & tolorance.

Is it just me, or are the people in charge a.k.a. the government, always coming up with ideas that just don't work.

The point of legalisation would be the fact that less illegal guns are spread around the country, that when someone buys a gun it's all legal and registered. So now all the good an fair people can own a gun, whoopy.

BUT... let us think rational. well, maybe not rational, but let's think theatrics. Imagine yourself a bankrobber called Jimmy. To do this you need a gun, so you go out and get one, it's easy right. Then you stomr into a bank and have to shoot someone to get out. Oh goody, goody gumdrops for the police. We know what kind of weapon was fired, now lets look at the list, wow, 7 people in the state have that gun. Let's pay them a visit.

So, little Jimmy bought his gun and now finds the police on his doorstep. Only because he took the legal path.

Now Imagine yourself a hitman called Jack. Jack needs a gun, but he doesn't want anyone to know he owns a gun. So he goes to the black market and buys himself a gun without registration. He goes after his target, kills it and the police can look all the want, they'll never find a gun like the one used registered to Jack.

Now which of the two would you rather be, Jimmy or Jack. so even if guns are legalised, there would still be the illegal market to deal with, just as there is now.

Off course, Jimmy forgot to put into account that everyone in the bank has his own gun, so as soon as he pulls his everybody pulls their own and starts shooting at Jimmy, bullets fly around and if Jimmy is the smarter guy he just drops to the floor and let all the bullets kill all bystanders, so he doesn't actually have to shoot his. (Okay, a little exageration on my part, I know)

The only logical thing to prevent excess killing would to destroy all guns in the world... Yeah like that's gonna happen... there's always the excuse we need to kill other people with our guns, before they kill us with theirs. If their is one invention that made the world a badder place it's the invention of the gun imho. Now People will probably start about, but what if we didn't have guns in WWI or WWII. Well plain and simple, if we didn't have them, our adversaries wouldn't have them and the whole WW-thing... it would probably enver have happened.

Stone, maybe you consider to review your post?

Raoul - no, it's not just you, but at the same time your idea just doesn't work either...

If now everybody will have the chance to aquire a gun, we're back to the High Noon scenario of the "Wild West" of 19th century US. Some people are short wired, they shouldn't own guns, other people have really ( I mean REALLY) bad vision or a shaky hand... I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone is running around with a gun...

If all guns in circulation get "fingerprinted" it would be one step. We won't erase (gun) violence, but we can curb it.

Guns are not like (soft) drugs. There always will be an illegal market, but the facts speak for themselves:

there is LOADS less gun related violence and gun related accidents in Europe than in the US.

And Hawkfeather: some people can handle (hard) drugs, why are they deprived of their right of self-determination? Other people can handle high speeds (up to 150mph - no prob for me) why do I have to slow down? Society works this way. We need to protect the weak and ... "not as intelligent" - if necessary we need to protect them from themselves...

More guns - more problems, less guns - less problems. The facts of US vs. EU paint a clear picture.

Thanks for contributing

True That friend! I see the reason of that.

Obviously, you are a good parent. So this discussion is not about bad parenting on a personal level. It’s more about social conditioning on a national level. Australia with sensible restrictions on gun use by hunters and targets shooters has a low rate of gun violence. America, with little restriction or discipline on gun use, is a bad parent, and has a extremely high level of gun violence, compared to other developed countries. So the question we keep asking as good parents and citizens is when is the bad parent, in this case America, is going to bring some parental discipline to it’s errant children who insist on playing with guns and killing themselves and others ?




I think it’s just you. The gun laws in Australia work extremely well, perhaps because the have the backing of the people who just got tired of useless gun violence.

Gun laws in Europe also work quite well. Those countries with more libaral gun legislation tighten them (with citizens support). Gun violence is low.

Yes, we do have criminals - but they hardly use guns as often as they are in the States (where they need to expect armed response).
Yes, we have homicides and we have psychos - but we hardly have as many ppl pulling a gun, because not many ppl have them.

We might not have as much wildlife out there as in the States, given that (which is why Ranger are included in the exceptions), we do have armed bank-robberies (mostly using fakes) and most of them get caught afterwards... no bloodshed for bucks.

Gun violence is mostly unnecessary, most of us have less "stand my ground" attitudes - that's what it is.

Stone, as much as I agree with your opinion on gun laws I don't appreciate name calling, from neither side. Only because someone has a gun, he's not identifying with "Rambo" (the movie character - as I've quoted, Sylvester Stallones personal opinion on guns is very different). So you only talk for yourself on this one.

I for my part see "it" deeply rooted in America, it's as much a personal issue, but promoted on a cultural level. "Old (bad) habots die hard"... 's just that.

for the comic generation

I believe Our Laws here in the US are for the lack of a better phrase are F**ed up! There is no happy medium. The people have lost the will to stand up for their rights. It is almost like our country is Dying. That's why it is so Important to focus on Helping Each other out rather than worrying about what we get out of the deal. You are correct, But I beleive Guns don't kill People do! People are the will, So it must start there. Oh & thank you for the compliment Stone.

Four killed after gunman opens fire at Pennsylvania gym



Come on guys why do you put up with this? Isn't it time Americans rose above the money making and “special” interests of the radical gun lobby, and did the right thing to protect the community from senseless 'rambo' type idiots with guns.

Isn't it time for a gun amnesty? Isn't it time to re-claim your freedom America?

Really? We "put up with this" in the same sense that we "put up" with drunk drivers and domestic abuse. WTF Stone, I don't condone those actions, and never have. Those are the types of things I want to end. Bad guys are going to have guns regardless, the same way they still have guns in the UK and Australia. It could have been explosives, and that would have ended much worse.

He was not a 'Rambo' type idiot in any sense of the word, that would imply some sort of vigilante justice, this was murder-suicide. We have always said the same thing when it comes to unstable people, or criminals, I don't see why you argue with me on it, or take on your 'holier than thou' attitude.



Sorry, but I don't see giving up my rights as 'reclaiming my freedom' in any sense of the word. Gun Amnesty is a farce, and does little to nothing to taking guns away from criminals. Why could a criminal hand in their tool anyways?



Gun crimes/murder aren't what you need to be looking at if you want to determine the level of violence in a population, you need to look at per-capita rankings of other violent crimes. Assault, rape, etc. Murder stats are skewed based on medical facilities and abilities

So quick look at nationmaster for some definitely iffy stats, but lets see what we find..

Rape: per 1,000

Australia: .777
Canada: .733
USA: .301
UK: .142

Robberies: per 1,000

UK: 1.57
USA: 1.38
Australia: 1.16
Canada: 0.82

Assault: per 1,000

US: 7.56
UK: 7.45
Canada: 7.11
Austalia: 7.02

Crime rates between our countries are not *that* much different, despite your strict gun laws and your efforts to make us out to have roving gangs of vigilantes looting and pillaging everything in sight.

What I found more interesting were the 'perception of safety' stats that they have based on surveys from crime victims.

Perception of Safety (against burglary):

US: 78%
Canada: 66%
UK: 58%
Australia: 57%

Perception of Safety (walking in the dark):

US: 82%
Canada: 82%
UK: 70%
Australia: 64%

So despite having less people, and less guns, your citizens feel less safe than American's or Canadians. Perhaps it has something to do with the incessant nanny-state fear mongering you guys put out?

Why do you always try and shift the blame from guns by bringing up alcohol and drugs? This discussion is about guns, and the killer used a multiple guns. Btw, we don’t tolerate drunk or drugged drivers in my State. This was a gun massacre not a bombing, and the incident did not happen in the UK or Australia, it happened in America.

Suggest that you stop pretending these gun massacres don’t happen on a regular basis, and do something to prevent them occurring in the future. Australia did something to reduce the incidence of gun massacres, all you do is make it easy by allowing people to carry concealed handguns and assault weapons.



Of course he was a NRA Rambo type. He couldn’t deal with life so he lashed out at society with “guns” rather than learning to communicate and handle difficult situations in a "civilised" manner”.



The gun amnesty worked in Australia. The reality is that you don’t really have any right to keep firearms in society. That is a NRA myth, as are the scare tactics regarding criminals. The real criminals here are thy NRA because they brain wash impressionable minds with all this second amendment nonsense about guns and glory!

I'm not pro-gun by any means but, Stone... your arguments are not strong.



The point was that explosives are relatively easy to make out of fairly accessible compounds and if he really wanted to wreak 'rambo style' havok then he could do so without a gun.

And are you really suggesting that using other countries as parallels in discussion is uncalled for? Theres no data for "America without guns" is there?

The issue with a gun is that its there when a person snaps... you ought not be looking for 'rambos' but instead looking for people pushed to the point of temporary insanity...

The sorts of people you tend to portray, being 'paranoid NRA fanatics stockpiling weapons' are, if pushed to the point where they will use it against a person are probably determined enough to seek other ways of slaughtering people en mass.

I think I have made my point. If there is no data on America without guns, then lets get some. That guy did not snap, he had been planning the massacre for months, since before the election. He chose to use guns not explosives. I think most NRA types would have guns as their weapon of choice. That's the whole point of bing in the National Riflemans Association, and having the "so-called" right to bear arms. And that has certainly been the case in other "gun" massacres.

The bit about Rambo is sourced from the wiki. The point being, he couldn’t deal with life so he lashed out at society with "guns" (and explosives, it was a movie) rather than learning to communicate, and handle difficult situations in a "civilised" manner”. Now, people can work towards changing that or they can live with gun violence.

You can believe all the NRA lies, or you can learn to think for your self. For example, pro-NRA Senators repeatedly stated that CCW permit holders were “law abiding,” completely ignoring a new study by the Violence Policy Center that found that over a two-year period from May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders murdered 7 police officers and wounded 3 others, including 44 homicides of private citizens.

So you'd rather someone used explosives rather than guns?

Neither guns or explosives. The point is to develop some communication skills, other than the use of gun or explosives, so people can handle difficult situations with out resorting to violence.

Really? Cause so far you haven't shown that concealed carry creates any more violence. There is obviously a benefit for it, but criminals are going to carry anyways. Have you found 'rambo style' mass shooting where the gunman had a CCW permit and was lawfully carrying their weapon at the time?



So you've lumped anyone that commits a crime, with a gun, into the 'Rambo' category? Just want to clarify there..



Did it? How many guns did you get vs the cost to acquire them? How many criminals gave up their weapons? Could that money have been spent elsewhere, say, in more police, and had a better result? I'm gonna guess yes. You may have had a gun amnesty (Don't fool yourself into thinking gun amnesty programs haven't been done here, they have. If people want to give up their guns that's fine by me.) But you're still 2.5 times more likely to be raped in Australia, and I think the 82% of Americans vs 64% of Australians feeling safe walking at night speaks volumes. Despite the vast difference in our gun policies your violence is not that different from ours. Better in some, worse in others, don't try to deny that.



Were you reading a different article than I was? It says nothing about his planning that I saw, or even multiple guns.



Have you *seen* the Rambo movies?



You're telling *me* to learn to think for myself? You're the one linking to the "Violence Policy Center" with such an awesome mission statement as A national educational foundation working to enhance gun control in America. That sure sounds fair and unbiased to me...

Sadly there aren't published numbers by all states on exactly how many people have CCW permits in them, but there are a few. Your VPC study shows 7 LEOs and 44 citizens, plus 6 shooters that commit suicide, so a grand total of 57 deaths over two years. I would say the CCW population is *FAR* less violent and less deadly than the population as a whole. And as a kicker, you *know* they have guns!

Florida alone published that they have 581,325 active permit holders as of the end of May this year. The total published (less than half the states with CCW's make it public that I can find) comes to 3,736,266. It's probably more than double that. Your implications to somehow say that CCW holders are more dangerous, in *any* way, than the normal population is just a joke Stone.

No just people, predominantly males, who hide behind their “guns” in the mistaken belief that it enhances their masculinity, rather than learning to communicate and handle difficult situations in a "civilised" manner”.



The Amnesty, worked, no problem about that. Even if it didn’t, it was a step in the right direction. A step away from lawless individuals running around with assault weapons looking for their well organised militia. Anyhow, what is the cost of gun violence in America? Have you got any idea? As to the criminals , they mostly shoot themselves. The big point you miss is most gun violence happens in the home, and is caused by relatives or friends. That we need guns to fight the “criminals” is just NRA paranoia.

As to violence, I’d agree that the Melbourne CBD is not some where I suggest go out at night on the weekend. The have been a lot of stabbings, and I wake up every Monday morning and thank God, that we don’t allow the public access to semi-automatic assault weapons and hand guns; because it would be carnage.



Try a search on Pittsburgh gym massacre, check out his blog.



I read First Blood years ago, and I may have forgotten how some of it goes. I know they changed the ending. “In the original, Rambo asks Trautman to allow him to die so he won’t have to be arrested. Trautman refuses but Rambo grabs the gun in his hand, pulling it to his stomach. The gun fires and Rambo dies in slow motion. Kirk Douglas, the original choice for the role of Colonel Trautman, wanted the film to end as the book did for "artistic" reasons. Douglas quit following arguments over Stallone's pressure for an alternate ending where Rambo survives. After a test audience shown the completed film objected to seeing Rambo die, the alternate ending favoured by Stallone was used (wiki).”



What wrong with a national educational foundation working to enhance gun control in America ? Seems like an excellent idea.



Obviously, if you are packing a concealed weapon with the intent to kill (use deadly force) then hey, you are dangerous!

I have nothing else to say but that you are a moron Stone. Not because you are anti-gun, but because you're absolutely obsessed with any one having a gun being a bad person that either A) thinks he or she is "Rambo" or B) Intends to kill someone.

Mate, I get those ideas from people like you. Perhaps, it's because I don't live in America, but yes strangely enough, I do think it is bad to kill or threaten fellow human beings. And lets face it, if you carry a concealed weapon or an assault rifle (lets say an AR 15, America’s favourite assault rifle) then you are going out armed to kill. As you know, the second amendment ain’t about duck hunting or shooting targets.

Guys, I really don't feel like name-calling is getting us anywhere. And I - for my part - can only acknowledge, that the pro-gunners are not going to change their POV or opinion (and how could they, as it goes directly against their own behavior).





you're constantly contradicting yourself, man... and you're watching too many movies/ or taking them too seriously.

I can't really speak for Stone, only assume that he - as myself - is not talking about trained personnel (as in (body)guards, police and military)...

Lurch: I'm not getting in your argument as you (again) failed to provide us with your sources. I am trying my best to make it easy on you guys by posting links where you can verify my arguments and statistics.

If you want to get taken serious in this discussion (at least by me), I'd like to ask you to kindly follow the same standards.

Stone: Sorry, though I understand your frustration, I beg you to review your way of argumentation and not to get stuck on that peculiar level... the facts speak for themselves and the studies (so far) prove that. Please come back to a more objective level.

This recent study proves: