British Expatriate Network

This is a comment from my American wife.

"Nobody cares, so people are shot and killed, so what,if enough people cared about banning guns they would be banned"

It is interesting to note, not one person in my workplace made a single comment on this issue.

More children were killed by firearms in the US last year than all the US armed forces fatalities in the Iraq war since it started.

The rest of the worlds shock at how this could happen will never be replicated here. There were 46 firearms fatalities in the UK last year, in the US the average number of people who die as a result of intentional or accidental firearm wounds is somewhere in the region of 30,000. To you me and the gatepost this is absolutely appalling, to any US citizen this is apparently acceptable. If it wasn't it would not be happening.

There will always be huge arguments both pro and con firearm ownership. So if we ban guns then only criminals will have them. This maybe so, but thousands of people will not die as a result. And if the punishment for being in possession of a firearm was 20 years in jail then the number of fatalities would drop even further.

People value gun ownership much more than they do human life, if they didn't someone would do something about it.

The Australian government faced a huge backlash when it banned firearms, but it did it anywhere and thousands of lives were saved.

There is an argument that if a citizen of any coutry wants to kill himself with a gun then who should stop him, that same argument would then have to apply to hard drugs, driving without a seatbelt and Doctor assisted suicide.

This will never change, it doesn't matter if its a Senator's child that is killed, it will never change.

Has anyone tried buying a gun on-line?
It would appear that it's not too difficult if this site is anything to go by.
http//www.gunbroker.com/User/BuyerTutorial.asp

EEB, I think you are correct. I've noted that there has been no real mention in the US media of gun control or the fact that a man with a known history of stalking (a form of domestic violence) and mental health issues (including forced admission to a MH facility) was able to lawfully buy guns and ammunition.

The sort of regulations I support would target this sort of thing in the same way as you would deny a driver's license to someone with a history of epilepsy or who is vision impaired. You are not punishing the sick - you are protecting the them and the public at large.

And what else should go on this database? People will avoid treatment to avoid it and authorities will put people on the list because they don't like the colour of their eyes.

Eestendboy .

While I like you are dismayed at any loss of human life *expecially innocent children *
i am a little sceptical about you statement .

there are well over 3000 deaths of US armed froces in irag since the start of the invasion .

more than that number of children killed by firearms in one year would be TRULY a national disgrace .

its customary on this site to follow up statements of fact by fiqures/stats . opinions are and always will be opinions



I would like you to furnish facts / stats to back up this assumption

Not a totla answer John, but an indication that EEB is quite likely correct - the 2002 figure for gun related deaths of children (people aged under 19 according tot he CDC)
was 2893

http//www.ichv.org/kidsandguns.htm

CDC for 2003.

"NEW YORK - June 13 - The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) releases its report on gun violence against children, "Protect Children, Not Guns," at a time when major U.S. cities are calling for strategies to combat illegal firearms. Citing the most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the report reveals that 2,827 children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 -- more than the number of American fighting men and women killed in hostile action in Iraq from 2003 to April 2006."

http//www.commondreams.org/news2006/0613-01.htm

You would not keep a datbase any more than the DMV does. Ther person buying the gun would need a permit and that permit would make them liable for anything that happens with that gun unless it is reported stolen. To get a permit you woul dneed to provide the necessary medical information and pass some basic gun safety certification (like a driving test)...
BTW I'm making this up as I go along. My general point is that we, as a society, decided that driving is a privilege and so we regulate it. Gun ownership and use should be on the same footing.
It would not be a solution to everything, but it would be an improvement on what we have now.

If the kid at VT had slapped his girlfriend and she got a DV order, he would not be allowed to own a gun. But he didn't. He did however get admitted to a psychiatric facility and cause his professors sufficient alarm that they had a secret code to alert one another if they thought he was going to go off...

If I either of the girlies he stalked had followed thru and pressed charges he wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun and spent more than a day in the clinic/rehab/psyc unit.
If I'd been a cop there I would have charged them for wasting police time if they didn't press charges.


But then, if ifs and buts were pots and pans, there'd be no need for tinkers.

Come to think of it, are there any tinkers left?

FACT: Nationwide for 2002, gun violence killed 2,893 American children and teens ages 19 and under, a decrease of only 1% from the nationwide 2001 total of 2,937. While these numbers have been steadily decreasing over the past five years, an average of .....8 young people killed each day by guns in the U.S is still too many........
-
thats pretty sad .:-(
i was hoping he was wrong sniff
although the fiqures include suicide ,gang violence and accidents its still a startling fiqure ,hopefully the fiqures are still decreasing since 2002 .

This country (america ) has violence deep in its culture .

it always amazes me the number of moralists who decry sex in our movies ,books, songs and tv yet not to many of them stand up and shout about the violence that is feed to kids each and every day .

Rob, surely, if the girlfriend got an order, the guy's name would have gone on a database or else no one could check. You mentioned epilepsy in respect of driving; is that on a database or do they rely on an honest answer to the question.

Nobody wants a negative psych evaluation where others can see it, it would shut the job market down and do all kinds of harm.

There is something seriuosly wrong with the faculty that runs VT IMO

this guy had numerious reports about him distrupting classes , stalking girls . cuasing a distubance , and generally acting in a anti social way ,and was in fact reffered to counceling for help .

not wishing to start a PC argument but ask yourself this ,


why was a foriegn student with all those problems allowed to continue as a student ?

if the student had been disruptive . shown violent and anti social behavuior . stalked girls and was generally a misfit AND HAD BEEN a student from a rich middle class family ..do you think he would have been allowed to continue his courses ???

seems there was a lot of laxitude in this case cus he was student from a minority class

I generally don't make stuff up John. You can take as written that if I post anything that contains a statistic, a number or a recollection of tales that I have checked it with at least one source. But I really appreciate being told what are facts and what is an opinion, as I wasn't sure as to the difference. :wink:

When you apply for a driving license in most states, you complete a fairly lengthy form that asks about specific medical conditions. If you tick the yes box, they will normally seek further information.
If you tick no when you should have ticked yes and this is discovered at a later date, you can be convicted of an offense. Its not a perfect system, but it balances the need to protect the public with the need to have an efficient administrative system.

Gun ownership could use a similar system.

To John A - you are right that many of the child gun shot deaths are suicide and accidents. This is because people do not secure their weapons correctly. Again this would be a simple and reasonable reugation and I can see no reason why the gun lobby or the NRA should oppose it. However, they often do :cry:

I have no problem with every gun being licensed. There should be a cooling off period of say 8 days from the day you buy it, to the time you get it, so that checks can be carried out. Certain guns should not be allowed in civie street.

often concerns me that certain people feel the need to own an AK47 or military type weapon, says something about their state of mind right there lol. Only people that should have those weapons are the military and historical collectors of such weapons.

First time you get arrest and charged with any violent crime, all your guns are taken away, maybe for a couple of years.

It won't stop gun crime. Nothing with do that, until all guns are gone and that will never happen, but may stop some.

People need to stop comparing gun crime here with other parts of the world. More stabbings happening in the UK than the US. Now the UK is wondering how to stop that.

You have to face it, if we are intent on hurting someone, you will use whatever is at hand to do it.

Sad world really.

With the Virginia tech shooting you hear both extremes. From arm everyone, students, teachers and the world, to ban every gun.

Arm teachers, ummmm are these the same teachers that show all that responsability when having sex with their students or not notice students having sex in their class room.

To let students have them, ummm same students that get pissed off because they are dumped, plus ragging hormones, feel they have been dissed and want to prove a point.

We have enough trouble when the experts get in a shoot out and end up shooting each other in cross fire accidents.

Even the military shoot each other in well planned operations, by accident.