Restrictions on US gun ownership

[cromwell]

Let me say first off that I do not like Barack Obama. He bears too much resemblance to Tony Blair for me; the same phony pauses in his speeches, like a good man wrestling with strong emotions, the same meaningless talk of "change" without specifying what the change is, the same shifty eyes and big ears.

I also notice that once again it's the "But who will think of the CHIILDREN?" argument being deployed.

But all that said, what is the great to-do about? Obama is only proposing better background checks, as I understand it? Surely that a good thing? Unless you actually think that it is a good idea that lunatics and criminals are allowed to own guns.

From a British perspective, it's hard to understand the fuss.

[Workingman]

USA, a country with more registered guns than citizens, and probably double the number when unregistered guns are added in. How does anyone control that?

If everyone plays ball the new laws will only remove a few thousand new guns from being registered, at most, but not everyone will play ball.

No harm in trying, mind.

[Suff]

We come from a very different make up from America. Whilst the UK and Europe are an extension of the influence of the Roman Empire and the organised Autocracies which replaced it, America was so large that it was not possible to lay claim all in one go. Chunks were claimed but it was not until the war of independence that a complete American government was created which claimed the whole country.

By that time the country was settled in many places by individual citizens with guns. Guns were a vital requirement for hunting for food or for defence against Indians or even just the wildlife. Then came the war with Mexico. Had the US not consisted of almost all citizens, both having and knowing how to use a weapon of some sort, they would have lost pretty catastrophically.

So the US enshrined in their constitution the right to bear arms. Yes it's a bit of an anachronism and it causes problems from time to time, but it sort of works for them. Better background checks slows the flood. Anything which slows the flood is better.

Consider this. In Hong Kong, which had no MOT, the first MOT was for 10 year old vehicles. With the aim of getting it up to annually within 10 years. This is the same. Nobody will accept total gun control in the US in one go but it is extremely hard to argue that making sure guns don't fall into the hands of convicted criminals or deranged people is a bad idea.

I'm with Obama on this. He understands his people and he knows what needs to be done. All the Climate guys who have challenged me on Obama and his record on Climate have had to climb down, every time. Because his record on Climate is the best of any US president ever. However he understands his people. He uses the words his people can live with and he can win with. So he won't say Climate Change. It's been poisoned. So he won't say "Remove the guns" but he will make sure the barrier to owning a gun legally is so high that only those who need them and should have them (vitally), will get them. Anyone else with a gun will, eventually, become illegal and the police will, eventually, hoover them up.

America has a long history of this. After all, what did Al Capone go to jail for????

[Aggers]

America has a long history of this. After all, what did Al Capone go to jail for????

Actually, Suff, Al Capone was sent to prison for Tax Evasion.

[cromwell]

So he won't say "Remove the guns" but he will make sure the barrier to owning a gun legally is so high that only those who need them and should have them (vitally), will get them. Anyone else with a gun will, eventually, become illegal and the police will, eventually, hoover them up.

If so then that is why the gun lobby are so intransigent. They know that this is his long term aim and they won't shift an inch towards it.

Personally I would not like my Government to have the right to start saying "You don't need that - so you can't have it". Once they get that idea into their heads who knows where it will end?

[Workingman]

Heads of State now have to leave a legacy when their term of office is over: this is Obama's.

He is not exactly making it that hard to get a gun by having background checks on sellers before they become registered to sell, background checks for mental illness and violence for buyers, and for all that information to be shared between states. He has wrapped it all up with a $500m dollar programme of easier access to mental health care.

He is not stopping the sale of guns, nor is he removing the unknown number of unregistered guns from circulation. That is not to say that what he is starting is not worth the effort.

The sad thing is that he, nor any other President, would attempt such a move in the first year of what would then be their only term of office.

[pederito1]

A brilliant move here taking away everyone`s licensed hand guns some of which were probably treasured souvenirs and I don`t think any compensation was ever paid. Of course it led to a massive drop in gun crime...er...or has it?

[cromwell]

No Ped, it hasn't. Gun crime actually increased after the handgun ban.

There is currently a spate of shootings going on in Manchester, but it is barely being reported.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... manchester

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rd-9852041

[Workingman]

If there is an upside to UK gun crime it is that many victims and perpetrators are known to each other through family or gang membership.

Massacres such as Hungerford or Dunblane are extremely rare as, indeed, are random street shootings.

[TheOstrich]

No Ped, it hasn't. Gun crime actually increased after the handgun ban.
There is currently a spate of shootings going on in Manchester, but it is barely being reported.

There has also been a stark upsurge of gun incidents in Birmingham since October, with two dead and around 30 injured. This seems at present to be gang on gang reprisals, even fighting within gangs, rather than criminal activity in the wider community. The worrying factor is that these incidents aren't being confined to the usual gang areas (Aston, Handsworth) but are spilling out into other parts of the city. There has even been a shooting on our local "estate" in Sutton Coldfield, around 1/2 mile from where we live.

The police are taking a bullish attitude and saying they are on top of it, and indeed have made a number of arrests and confiscations, but the lack on "on the street" resources, thanks to the Government cutbacks, is beginning to tell, and the Afro-Carib communities (where this is mainly happening) aren't convinced. Even the PCSOs are being cut now.

It is a problem which the affected communities can greatly help resolve, but they are saying "who do we turn to now as the police presence is disappearing". It's left to community leaders and volunteers. The City Council has just imposed three fairly draconian banning orders on known individuals, but to what end? How effective will that be?

We do need more "action" than "awareness" from the police in the sense that they need to put more bodies on the streets and forge ever-closer (sorry,couldn't resist a snatch of EU jargon ) ties within the affected neighbourhoods.

It is said that the firearms themselves are often antique and the ammunition home-made. But they are still deadly.