Mass Shooting Incidents in the United States

[smalishah84]

Four dead in townhouse shooting in Aurora, Colorado | World | DAWN.COM

a different case probably but guns at the forefront again

[Top_Cat]

Hey, everyone can relax now, Sandy Hook never happened. Phew!

Meet the Sandy Hook truthers - Salon.com

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Hey, everyone can relax now, Sandy Hook never happened. Phew!

Meet the Sandy Hook truthers - Salon.com

That's a relief! So the Sandy Hook Massacre to be nominated for an Academy Award this year then?

Now I can get back to making my own website about how The Constitution never happened.

[KiWiNiNjA]

Scapegoat Hunter – Gun Control

[Redbacks]

It appears the impending announcement on gun control has been a catalyst for the industry.

The NRA has picked up 100,000 new members and 2.7 million background checks were made in December, up 1 million from the same month in the previous year.

[silentstriker]

Yup, I stand by post about the NRA being different from other lobbyist organization. This is not some fringe special interest group dictating policy. This is reflective of the will of the people - it's a very grass roots thing.

EDIT: It was a post in the other thread, but it makes sense here. It was in response to a question about how much power the NRA has.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/off-...lt#post2979553

Originally Posted by silentstriker

So in the late 1960s, Congress passed the Gun Control Act. NRA really got going after that. It was looking for a while that we would end up with extremely strict gun control laws.

In 1986, they Firearms Owners Protection Act - which really pulled a lot of teeth from the Gun Control Act.

They had some defeats in the 90s - with several gun control laws passed including the assault weapons ban.

In 2004, despite George Bush saying he would extend it, they launched a massive lobbying campaign and the law lapsed.

Next year, they passed a law that stops people who make and sell guns from being sued if someone uses their weapons. After that, they passed law making sure the government can't take your guns away during a natural disaster. You can now carry guns in American national parks - this law was passed despite massive democrat majorities in both houses AND President Obama in office (he didn't want to take on the NRA because it would endanger his credit card reforms).

Not one gun control legislation has passed Congress since the 90s, including when Democrats had almost 60 senators and a huge majority in the House.

However, to see the real changes, you have to look locally - as I said they are different than other lobbies because they have support of a lot of average people, which means they can be local, and vocal, in their lobbying. They can mobilize their members and go door to door in addition to flooding the town with ads. Politicians don't like ads against them, but what they like even less is people in their constituency (not protesters bussed in from other places) demonstrating by the hundreds against them and giving free press to the opposition.

Check this out. In 1986, only 9 states had laws that issued concealed carry licences on a 'no restriction' or 'shall issue' basis. No restriction means obviously no licence needed and shall issue would be that there would only be a few specific instances where it could be denied and the local authorities had no say in who couldn't. 16 states had NO laws granting an ability to carry a concealed weapon.

Fast forward right now: 41 states have 'no restriction' or 'shall issue basis'.



Yup, you went from 9 states to 41 states which pretty much have unlimited concealed carry laws. And the 16 which prohibited it completely? That's down to 1. That's right. 1.


There used to be a serious conversation about banning all handguns in the country. Now it's doubtful if even a semi-automatic assault rifle can be banned.

If you don't call that dominating the field, I don't know what qualifies.

[grecian]

Well ss it's still not really reflective of the will of the people. whilst it's still a minority, Anyway I admit it's a significant minority.

Okay, I'm not being sarky here I'm genuinely interested, I've followed the histories of stalin and Hitler quite well, I really don't remember either stalin or Hitler taking the guns away from people before their tyranny, I don't remember either nation having a lot of guns beforehand. Am I wrong?

[silentstriker]

Well the 2nd amendment precedes both Hitler and Stalin by quite a bit . The British did try to take the guns away from American militias, which was one of the major reason for its adoption. Actually what England did back then is the basis for a bunch of our amendments (everything from quartering of soldiers to search and seizure, etc). So there's that.

Somewhere between 39-50% of American households have a gun, and more than that amount support guns. So even if it's not a majority, it's still close. Basically what I'm saying is that it's not a fringe minority. This is a significant # of people who support it, and so in a democracy, that's just what's going to happen. Even if laws get passed - enough people oppose it that they may not stay passed.

Hell, I'm very much a liberal on most issues and even I support gun rights.

[wellAlbidarned]

SS, do you really support gun rights? I'd imagine you to be more of a gun "privileges" type. It's just like how driving a car isn't a bloody "right" anywhere.

[silentstriker]

Yea, I support gun rights.

Well, two things. First, I think the second amendment guarantees us protection from the government infringing on our right to own firearms, if you think it is a bad idea (which is certainly a very legitimate opinion), they should repeal it legally instead of illegal restrictions. But, if I did have a choice right now, I would probably write the amendment differently (or not have that in the constitution at all, and have it be handled on a normal law basis). Would I go the UK route? No, I don't think I would. I am not criticizing the gun laws in the UK - clearly people seem to be happy with it, and they certainly don't have much gun crime at all, so that's great. But the culture is different here. Plus, speaking for me personally, I tend to be pretty libertarian on issues like this.

And selfishly speaking, I may want to collect rifles and such in the future.

[Son Of Coco]

Have heard a few American people talking on TV about how the right to bear arms offers them protection against a rogue government (if that was to happen)...there are some special people over that way it has to be said.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Have heard a few American people talking on TV about how the right to bear arms offers them protection against a rogue government (if that was to happen)...there are some special people over that way it has to be said.

Hmmm - so if I have a handgun holed up in my trailer I'll be able to hold off the heavily armed and organised militia that I suspect a rogue government might have - they are amazing aren't they!

I blame the movie industry myself ......................

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

Hmmm - so if I have a handgun holed up in my trailer I'll be able to hold off the heavily armed and organised militia that I suspect a rogue government might have - they are amazing aren't they!

I blame the movie industry myself ......................

In fairness, we've seen armed populations put up pretty effective resistance guerrilla style against modern armies. Not that I buy that excuse, of course.

Plus, though it definitely doesn't make sense anymore, the purpose of the second amendment was exactly that.

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Have heard a few American people talking on TV about how the right to bear arms offers them protection against a rogue government (if that was to happen)...there are some special people over that way it has to be said.

If the US ever goes the Pakistan way they may have a legit reason.

[silentstriker]

You mean military coup? It won't.