"Gun laws close in on U.S. 'right to bear arms'" .... disgusting article...

[ingram]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=449011&in_page_id=1811

(bolding of words done by me)

Despite repeated school shootings, it is still ridiculously easy to obtain a gun in the US. Anyone aged over 18 and without a criminal conviction can legally buy a rifle or shotgun. Under US Federal Law only those aged over 21 can buy a handgun. The process often takes less than half an hour and requires a simple background check. Unlike the UK, gun owners are not required to store their weapons in a locked safe and there is no limit on the number of weapons they are allowed. Even though the Columbine school massacre in 1999 led to a partial ban on automatic weapons, many states - including Virginia - still allow the sale of such lethal weapons. According to a anti-gun group the state of Virginia has some of the weakest laws in the nation. They were awarded a C grade by the Brady Campaign, the leading organisation aimed at combating gun violence in America, which rates the toughest laws as an A grade. In Virginia not only are purchasers allowed to buy a gun a month if they wish, but there is no restriction on the type of weapon that is available. AK-47 assault rifles and Uzi sub machine guns can be bought legally over the counter. Gun buyers must undergo a computerised background and this often takes place on the spot. Some states do require a three day "cooling off" period while detailed checks are carried out to see if the buyer has a criminal record. Most checks are carried out at a state level, although the more detailed checks use the FBI criminal database. Anyone with a criminal conviction is automatically barred from buying a firearm. Last year in Virginia 2,568 gun buyers failed criminal background checks. However, there is nothing to stop those who failed the criminal checks from buying weapons from a private dealer.

In Virginia there is no state requirement that any checks be carried out on people buying guns at gun shows or from a private individual. Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.

There is also no state requirement that gun owners register their firearms. Police do not know how many guns are in Virginia or who has them. The lack of registration data makes it more difficult for police to trace guns used in crime, identify illegal gun traffickers or hold gun owners accountable for their weapons. The degree of control varies from state to state.

California has limited gun sales to one firearm per customer per month and outlawed some assault weapons according to their characteristics rather than the make and model. Illinois now requires owners to lock away firearms and fit child safety locks. The American Constitution, which sets out the country's rights and freedoms, says people are allowed to "keep and bear arms". This has deterred lawmakers from enforcing gun control and they often face opposition from the influential National Rifle Association. The NRA insists Americans have the right to bear arms.

 

[kcmarine]

Thank God I don't live over there...

 

[ShelleyB.]

The UK? That's comical, considering their level of crime.

Didn't the UK recently discuss banning knives?

Fools.

 

[bg]

Thank God I don't live over there...

We may if we don't fight back after the VT tragedy. We
all know the heat will be turned on afterburner against
firearms now...We have to shore up the NRA and keep
pounding on our politico's if we want to keep our
weapons. Bottom line.

 

[Gudis]

I'm pretty sure that part about Illinois storage law is incorrect, or at least I hope it is...

 

[LawBot5000]

I thought columbine happened after the ban on those nasty scary weapons. Using some of those banned weapons, in fact.... Purchased illegally because they were minors and thus unable to purchase firearms legitmately.... And used to kill people, also illegally....

Of course, the solution to this is to pass more laws. You know, because criminals are terrified of having a sentence enhancement slapped on to their death sentence. Criminals on a suicide mission are especially mindful of the legal consequences of their actions.

 

[cbsbyte]

Get use to seeing articles like this in the coming months. Its going to be rough water ahead.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Does the UK have any non tabloid press?

 

[Lew]

Didn't the UK recently discuss banning knives?

I hear "glassing" is also a problem. They should probably drink from solo cups.

 

[El Tejon]

Wow, where to begin?

1. There was no ban after Columbine. Colorado did require all sales to undergo background checks. The law is reportedly widely ignored and has a compliance rate of 10% or less.

2. There is restriction after restriction of gun sales under Virginia law. Uzis and AKs are regulated under federal law and one cannot buy them over the counter like a package of razors.

3. Gun shows operate according to all federal and state laws. There is no bubble over gun shows in which laws do not apply. It is illegal for criminals and juveniles to buy guns.

OTOH, they got the lack of registration correct. The government under the ATFE is breaking the law and attempting to register what they can, but in the main they are in the dark as to what we have.

 

[Duncan223]

AK-47 assault rifles and Uzi sub machine guns can be bought legally over the counter.

WOW!! - - If only it were that easy to get NFA!

 

[BergaminoCAV]

hahahahahahahaha the UKs gun control totaly failed and is a perfect example of how gun control DOES NOT WORK! they should look at the point that maybe if a law abiding citizen was carrying this problem could have been stoped early.

 

[LAR-15]

All they learned about US gun laws they got from Hollywood.

 

[Libertylover]

Now, isn't the UK's restrictive system and sheeple mentality the entire reason we FOUGHT A WAR to get rid of them, and then why we ADOPTED THE SECOND AMENDMENT!?!?!:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[teppo-shu]

I commented on their "article" yesterday, to the effect that the writer should have also discussed how the UK's failure to ban backpacks and their carry on public transport led to their own tragedy. They didn't have the cajones to print my comment because it doesn't fit with their agenda.

Then there's that trash-mouthed PM of Australia - what an absolute and utter moron.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[DaveP (UK)]

The UK bans were pretty successful in the eyes of those who passed them!
Something happened.
They banned something.
Incredibly easy to do, and apparently pretty easy to pass off as strong and effective leadership, especially as the press were still wringing their hands over the slaughter.
Call me cynical if you will, but I'm not alone in believing that a bunch of politicians, freshly elected without much of a manifesto, seized an opportunity to look good - for a while

 

[Lupinus]

This is my resposne to those calling for gun control on another board-

Gun control is not the answer and never works, lets take a look why.

First of all criminals have a bad habit of not obeying the law in the first place. If someone is willing to commit murder the crime of buying an illegal firearm and taking it someplace where it is prohibited sure will not stop them. They will simply go to a dark ally in any major city in the world and buy their firearm and then they will walk right past the sign into a victim disarmament zone probably thanking the guy who made that policy for making their job that much safer. So you say not everyone is street savvy enough to buy a gun illegally? Ok, I will grant you that much that I am sure there is a small percentage of people who wouldn't be able to buy an illegal firearm. These people will then resort to knives. Ban knives? Ok, they will make their own out of just about anything they can sharpen. Convicts in jail can easily make stabbing weapons and move them around, you honestly think that with the population at large will work? You can ban things all you want and when the bans don't work do the easy self fulfilling thing and blame it on someone else. Washington DC, NYC, Chicago, and others all have very strict gun bans in place. These places all have fairly high violent crime rates. Do they reexamine their strategy? Of course not, the easier thing to do is blame someone else for their strategy not working. Bans simply never work, remember ancient Rome? Yeah carrying weapons was banned. That worked about as well with knives as it does now with guns. Only the legal law abiding populace who isn't likely to cause trouble will follow the law, those willing to commit murder will not. And will always find away around the road block you place in front of them.

Banning guns simply gives into a mentality you have been spoon fed by those who wish to disarm you. And that mentality is that we should blame an object for the actions of a person or in some way takes some of the blame away and place it on the object. A firearm is a tool, an object not capable of using itself. It can be used for sport, as a collector item, as a self defense item against both criminals and dangerous animals, as pest control, to put food on the table, along with many other uses. And yes, it can easily murder someone. But that is determined by the user, not the object. This, and the fact banning them only effects law abiding citizens, is what makes banning weapons so ineffectual. Just as easily as I can murder someone with a firearm I can murder someone with plenty of other tools. A hammer, a car, a knife, so on and so fourth, all are inanimate objects with no control over how they are used. A hammer can be used to drive a nail or to beat someone, a car can be used to drive to destinations or be used to ram someone, a knife can be used to cut vegetables or to cut and stab a person, a firearm can be used for sport shooting pest control or to shoot someone. All inanimate objects and tools with their actions decided on by the user of that tool. These are a few of the reasons why banning weapons are so useless and futile. While it is easy to get people to agree that a thing we conventionally think of as weapons the world is still filled with them as any object when used in a certain way becomes a weapon. All tools are weapons, it simply depends how you use them.

Lastly I want to touch on something else and turn the tables for a moment. Consider for a moment if we lived in a world where there were no restrictions on owning and carrying weapons? Say, oh how about America up until about a hundred years ago, give or take depending on your locality. At this time anyone could buy a firearm and arm themselves, criminal and law abiding citizen alike, in the same exact ways. Why? Because people at the time realized a few things. One, as said above criminals wont obey the law and only law abiding citizens you don't have to worry about any way will follow the laws. Two, it was understood that you are responsible for your own safety. We have been force fed the mentality that you should simply call 911 and let the professionals handle it. That works fine and well when your life in not in immediate danger or you come home to discover a crime. What it does absolutely nothing for though is when you are in immediate danger. When you are being assaulted, murdered, raped, etc. the police can not help you, and even if you could get to a phone in the middle of that the best they can offer you for five or more minutes are to listen in on the act of you being murdered or raped. Not real comforting is it? Here at this particular shooting some people had cell phones and called the police, 30+ people died in the mean time. Why? Because the police can not protect you once an attack begins. They can maybe prevent it, they can solve it after the fact, a very small percentage of the time you might get lucky and the police might arrive before you are dead or severely injured and scared for life.

Now let me propose an alternate situation to you. What if there had been no restriction on students and faculty carrying firearms on campus? Regular law abiding folks going about their day, the only difference being that they were armed and able to protect themselves from such a threat. Now imagine that this had been the world those 30+ people lived in and only one or two of them took advantage of that and made the decision to take responsibility for their own safety and carry. When the gunman enters he gets a few shots off and maybe a few people die, yet at the same time he is receiving immediate return fire from those protecting themselves. The police can't be there every second to protect you, but you are with yourself every second of the day and can take responsibility for your own safety.

 

[Beatnik]

Dear Brits:

We're not you. We don't want to be you. We're actually quite sick of your insistence that we be more like you.

Perhaps if you didn't wear our jeans, eat our hamburgers, and watch our TV shows you'd have a leg to stand on. As it is, you don't. Try to invent something, or better the human race, or maybe just not surrender whenever the Iranians come for your sailors. Be a real country first. Then we'll talk.

Sincerely,

America

 

[Lupinus]

Perhaps if you didn't wear our jeans, eat our hamburgers, and watch our TV shows

Actually pants as we know them were invented by the celts, chopped meat by the tartars and turned into hamburger paties by the germans (allbeit eatin as a steak not on a bun), and many of our favorite tv shows are now adaptations of those in other countries.

Just being technicle

 

[iapetus]

"The Daily Mail".

That is pretty much all you need to see to know that the following article will be either:
a) Ill-informed
b) Hypocritical
c) Prejudiced against any one/thing not from "Middle England"
d) Hysterical
e) Arrogant
f) all of the above

The Daily Mail is one of the UK papers that I despise the most (although there are others that come close).

It is basically a tabloid for people who are too stuck-up to read tabloids.

It is extremely hypocritical, in its tendancy to jump from condemning any authoritarian measures that are /can be portrayed as "politically correct" or directed against its readership, to demanding crackdown after crackdown on anything that it doesn't like/approve of.


Unfortunately, it seems to be quite a popular and widely read paper, especially among middle-class housewives.


That said, I had known quite a few otherwise decent people who read it, so maybe a polite letter, explaining the flaws in the article, might be of some use.

 

[Nickotym]

The American Constitution, which sets out the country's rights and freedoms, says people are allowed to "keep and bear arms". This has deterred lawmakers from enforcing gun control and they often face opposition from the influential National Rifle Association. The NRA insists Americans have the right to bear arms.

Unfortunately it hasn't deterred them enough.

 

[Mk VII]

Daily Mail is a very right-wing paper, by British standards. Hates Blair, and has been written off as unappeasable by the Labour government.
"Written by office boys, for office boys" was one comment on it, long ago.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

The NRA insists Americans have the right to bear arms.

That's quite amusing. I always thought it was Americans who insisted that Americans have the right to bear arms.

Let me do a little bit of research... hhmm.... Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, George Washington, James Madison....The National Rifle Association... there it is! Wow, I guess I stand corrected...

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Let me do a little bit of research... hhmm.... Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, George Washington, James Madison....

Those dinosaurs? You know their opinions dont apply to the world we live in today.

j/k

 

[loach369]

Fellow firearm owners Stateside. Please do not lump all us Brits together on the basis of the article written in the filthy rag (that purports to be a newspaper) that is the Daily Mail.
I having been speaking to journalists all day about yesterdays tragic events. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE FACTS !!!!
Re Uzi smg's being available over the counter in Virgina I explained that this was not the case. I told them about the NFA. I told them about the $200 transfer tax. I told them about the LEO sign off and background checks. I told them about the 1986 ban. I told them there was only one instance of a registered NFA weapon being used in a crime (by a Police Officer).
THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED
I told them that handguns were not totally prohibited in here in the UK. Thet didn't believe me. I showed them the facts online on my laptop. Guess what??
THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED !!!