US Presidential race

[JOHNNYAITCH]

For celebrities,any publicity is good publicity,ask Lineker?

 

Except when it comes to Walkers putting their prices up cos of Brexit..the seeker of justice for all remains unusually quiet on that front

[Fosse69]

Except when it comes to Walkers putting their prices up cos of Brexit..the seeker of justice for all remains unusually quiet on that front

 

Dont suppose anyone has asked Gary to talk the £ up.

[Houston Valiant]

And had American gun laws been more sensible, Columbine and Aurora would not have happened. Simple really.

 

Let me put it another way, had Trump focused on the attorcities committed by US citizens and not crimes committed by Hispanics, and had he suggested changing the gun laws rather than building a wall between the US and Mexico, would he have garnered the same support and won the election?

 

It wasn't up to Trump to focus on gun crimes. That was , and is for the present , the responsibility of Obama, who's

gutless when it comes to crime. He talks out of both sides. He says nothing when police officers are murdered, or when

blacks burn down half of Ferguson Missouri over a thug who was attempting to kill an officer. Don't talk to me about America. I know it all.

You wouldn't understand from over there.

[cheeky]

It wasn't up to Trump to focus on gun crimes. That was , and is for the present , the responsibility of Obama, who's

gutless when it comes to crime. He talks out of both sides. He says nothing when police officers are murdered, or when

blacks burn down half of Ferguson Missouri over a thug who was attempting to kill an officer. Don't talk to me about America. I know it all.

You wouldn't understand from over there.

 

So if it wasn't up to Trump to talk about gun crime, why is it up to him to talk about crimes committed by Hispanics? You're right, I don't understand. Surely one crime is as bad as another? And the incoming president must be concerned with all crime, not simply a proportion of them?

[Jacko51]

It wasn't up to Trump to focus on gun crimes. That was , and is for the present , the responsibility of Obama, who's

gutless when it comes to crime. He talks out of both sides. He says nothing when police officers are murdered, or when

blacks burn down half of Ferguson Missouri over a thug who was attempting to kill an officer. Don't talk to me about America. I know it all.

You wouldn't understand from over there.

 

Just out of interest HA, what is your view on the Second Amendment? In particular, should the right to bear arms include high powered assault rifles?

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

 

Over a 1,000 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than by a terrorist! Clearly Muslims isn't anywhere near your main problem Donald, your second amendment is :(

[Paul6754]

It wasn't up to Trump to focus on gun crimes. That was , and is for the present , the responsibility of Obama, who's

gutless when it comes to crime. He talks out of both sides. He says nothing when police officers are murdered, or when

blacks burn down half of Ferguson Missouri over a thug who was attempting to kill an officer. Don't talk to me about America. I know it all.

You wouldn't understand from over there.

 

Obama has done his utmost to introduce change to the 2nd Ammendment such as closing the Gun Show loophole, stopping terrotists on the terror watch list and criminals with a history of gun violence being able to buy a gun and stopping the sale of rapid fire weapons etc etc, all sensible change that the majority of the USA poulation agree with and want, attempts have been thwarted in Washington or by the NRA. If Sandy Hollow can't spark a change then nothing will.

 

Trump would never have got anywhere mear the Whitehouse wothout his open embrace of the NRA.

 

The wide availability of guns is the root of much if not the majority of evil in the USA.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The wide availability of guns is the root of much if not the majority of evil in the USA.

 

It undoubtedly makes it easier for those who wish to do harm to do so. Does America have a bigger problem in terms of those who wish to do harm or is it that they have access to guns so can do what they want to do? If the UK had similar gun laws would we have such a problem?

 

I don't know the answer to the above

[Trampilot]

It undoubtedly makes it easier for those who wish to do harm to do so. Does America have a bigger problem in terms of those who wish to do harm or is it that they have access to guns so can do what they want to do? If the UK had similar gun laws would we have such a problem?

 

I don't know the answer to the above

 

In UK gunlaw, handguns are banned - except in Northern Ireland. In 2011, 9 people died of gun shots in NI. It's also legal to carried concealed firearms. Guns are not the issue, its the temperament and mentality of the people that have them.

 

As for referring to Assualt-style rifles (generally speaking - I note Jacko51 mentioned it) - this keeps getting highlighted in the media. There is a huge misunderstanding of what an assualt-style rifle is. The media want us to believe they are fully automatic - they aren't. These are banned EVEN in the US. What they are in fact referring too is the style of furniture. Ruger make a rifle that can be made with traditional wooden stock or a plastic "assault-style" stock. The rifle mechanism is EXACTLY the same but one would probably get banned because of this.

 

Gun control only controls legally held guns. A criminal, terrorist or whoever will use one regardless. If the laws are in place to properly assess gun ownership this would do more good than actually putting a control on an inanimate object. Make the penalties for not having the appropriate licence stronger and they might start getting somewhere. In the US there are probably too many guns in circulation for any ban to have any affect at all.

[Jacko51]

Gun control only controls legally held guns. A criminal, terrorist or whoever will use one regardless.

 

Surely that is true in the UK as well yet we clearly have far less gun related crime here than in the US

 

If the laws are in place to properly assess gun ownership this would do more good than actually putting a control on an inanimate object. Make the penalties for not having the appropriate licence stronger and they might start getting somewhere.

 

Which does rather beg the question as to why neither of these has actually happened? If folk like yourself and others can see this as a partial solution to the problems, why has no government done it?

 

In the US there are probably too many guns in circulation for any ban to have any affect at all.

 

Are you advocating doing nothing? I doubt anyone believes that the problems of excessive gun ownership will be solved in a couple of years but surely it has to start somewhere? The only person I know who has a gun is my brother who has a small holding and uses it to shoot pests. I suspect there are few people in the US who only know one person who has a gun.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Surely that is true in the UK as well yet we clearly have far less gun related crime here than in the US

 

But some people become criminals by using legally owned weapons as part of illegal activity...an awful lot of shootings are carried out using legally held guns. However, it seems to me self evident that the more difficult it is to get hold of a gun by whatever means the less likely they are going to be used for criminal activity..plus of course when they are sooooo much more difficult to get hold of and own there isn't the gun culture..they aren't seen as 'normal'.

 

Plus you've got to persuade Herb and Norma from Numnuts, Iowa to give up the gun(s) they own to protect themselves form those that would do them harm. There are people there who advocate arming school kids so that they can protect themselves from the "bad guys" that are armed.."If those kids had had guns they'd have taken out those terrorists before they did any damage."

 

That's a hard argument to win when so many see the gun as defensive not as something offensive.

[Trampilot]

Surely that is true in the UK as well yet we clearly have far less gun related crime here than in the US

 

 

 

Which does rather beg the question as to why neither of these has actually happened? If folk like yourself and others can see this as a partial solution to the problems, why has no government done it?

 

 

 

Are you advocating doing nothing? I doubt anyone believes that the problems of excessive gun ownership will be solved in a couple of years but surely it has to start somewhere? The only person I know who has a gun is my brother who has a small holding and uses it to shoot pests. I suspect there are few people in the US who only know one person who has a gun.

 

Thanks for the reply Jacko. I shoot myself (so to speak!) so am well versed in jumping through the legal hoops. Not to mention sensibly debating gun ownership.

 

Although some vetting and hoop jumping does happen, it only happens once. At the beginning. Even as a shooter I see this as flawed. To assess multiple times would be a huge administrative cost to this, not to mention the delays in reissuing licences, and police spending time doing it. In some respects (for the UK) I'd like to see less controls on the actual gun and more controls and assessments on those who actually possess them! I've seen things on ranges that have forced me to stop the shoot (as range officer) and give someone a brief piece of safety instruction. Personally I'd like to see range training being mandatory. Teaches healthy respect, discipline and awareness.

 

99.999999999% of people who shoot with legally held guns are safe. They have too much respect for the sport and their own freedom to mess it up. Sadly the very tiny minority of idiots keep stuffing it up. I'd like to see that percentage weeded out by actually assessing the people rather than arbitrarily banning guns. And if they are illegally held or to be used for illegal purposes - make the sentences long and tough. You can't unpull a trigger (that's the respect).

 

As for what to do in the US, well I've no problem with gun amnesties. I'd rather a gun was destroyed than end up in the hands of someone who hasn't got a clue or has an intent to do harm. However the amount of guns in the criminal world probably out weighs all the ones legally held. Make the penalties tougher - I mean REALLY tough for illegally held ones and encourage the criminals to give it up because getting caught with one won't be worth the risk.

 

Of course the US (apparently) have a problem with trigger happy cops - I have a feeling this is largely media driven but if anything can be done to improve the perception of police officers pulling their guns out at the slightest misdemeanour then that would also help I think.

[Trampilot]

But people become criminals by using legally owned weapons as part of illegal activity...an awful lot of shootings are carried out using legally held guns. However, it seems to me self evident that the more difficult it is to get hold of a gun by whatever means the less likely they are going to be used for criminal activity..plus of course when they are sooooo much more difficult to get hold of and own there isn't the gun culture..they aren't seen as 'normal'.

 

 

Which does rather beg the question as to why neither of these has actually happened? If folk like yourself and others can see this as a partial solution to the problems, why has no government done it?

 

 

 

Are you advocating doing nothing? I doubt anyone believes that the problems of excessive gun ownership will be solved in a couple of years but surely it has to start somewhere? The only person I know who has a gun is my brother who has a small holding and uses it to shoot pests. I suspect there are few people in the US who only know one person who has a gun.

 

Not sure about the number of legally purchased guns being used by the owners in crime (US only). Might be true but this says different:

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

 

Though there are a number of caveats around this and its a difficult one to calculate anyway if you buy privately. Or a legally held gun, is then stolen for use in crime. Would certainly be interesting to get better stats for it.

[philpvfc]

American gun laws are stupid. Most households carry a firearm and they claim to because they need to protect themselves because those who will butgal them will be carrying a gun and they are carrying a gun because they know there is a good chance the house owner is carrying a gun!!!

Imagine if we had their gun laws!! football violence would have been interesting in the 80s.

Obama has failed to reduce the amount of guns in America, it is going to be a long process but has to be done. About time they stepped in to the 21st century.

[Paul6754]

It undoubtedly makes it easier for those who wish to do harm to do so. Does America have a bigger problem in terms of those who wish to do harm or is it that they have access to guns so can do what they want to do? If the UK had similar gun laws would we have such a problem?

 

I don't know the answer to the above

 

Proportionatley I don't think America has a bigger problem in terms of those who wish to do harm but there are sections of the community where gun crime is much moore prevalent, if the UK had similar laws the problem would be proportionatly the same.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/15/guns-and-race-the-different-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/

 

 

The problem is more to do with the number of guns in circulation and their availabliity, given the best laws/controls/rules and regulations those determened will get their hands on a gun.

 

Consider a routine Police traffic stop, no one should end up killed but when the car driver may have a gun and refuses to follow the officers intructions then the whole equation changes and the awful events recently seen occur. It's not about race but about accepting law and order.