Obama and gun laws, a question.

Discussion in 'US' started by filthyphil, Dec 19, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. OK my American friends, the Chosen One says he's going to ban certain types of firearms. In your considered opinions, will it get through congress?
  2. That's on genie that you will never get back in the bottle. In a perfect world they would be banned, and that would be it, but U.S. citizens own 270 million guns - that's 90 guns for every 100 citizens. If they are banned, the good guys will surrender theirs, the bad guys won't, which is what happened in the UK after Dunblane (and gun crime shot up afterwards).

    I've lived in a country (SA) where it was prudent to carry a gun in certain areas (Like downtown Jo'burg), so I did. I'd rather live somewhere where, if it came to it, the good guys could shoot back.
  3. Same in Australia mate, good guys handed in the gats, Lebbos in Sydney shooting each other practically every day.
  4. Tbf guncrime and ownership of handguns in the uk have nothing to do with one another.
    You couldnt carry a handgun for self defence in the uk.
  5. The NRA have said 'Something must be done.' But I suspect that any attempt to change the staus quo will be taken the pretty route, and by the time it is brought before Congress will be unrecognisable and watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.

    Despite what is said about gun owners all being thickies and similar on this and other media, the NRA is staffed by politically savvy people, who know how to play the game.

    A thought occurs to me though, what would the logistics be like if everybody handed all their gats in at the same time?
  6. If, and it is still a big if, there is a ban on certain types of weapons it will be a ban on selling new ones, not a requirement to hand in existing ones. The Government would have huge 4th Amendment issues trying to take away something that had been legally bought and paid for because they decided to change the law after the fact.

    I can't think of many changes to firearms legislation in the US that affected weapons that were already in private hands. Their only way of legally taking away existing weapons would be a buy back programme which would be hideously expensive and would have to be voluntary.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. He'd have so many banjo pluckers taking a crack at him the front of the White House would look like Ypres Cathedral in 1917.
    • Like Like x 8
  8. I wait to be corrected by one of our colonial cousins but,IIRC there was a 10 year voluntary ban on Assualt Weapons,that ended in I think 2004,but was never renewed?

    The problem will be,you have 50 different State Legislatures,who all hate any interference from 'Washington',on anything they deem,to be a purely State matter. :meditate:
  9. It wasn't voluntary, it was a Federal law but with a time limit, and when it expired that was it.

    It banned the sale of new wpns with 10+ shot magazines, bayonet lugs, flash hiders and barrel shrouds, I think that was it.
  10. Too many regional differences to make any national legislation possible. A hand gun in NY for self defence is totally different to a farmer having a range o shotguns. The real brain f#$k comes with assalt weopons and survivalists. They will apose any new laws and would not obey any new ones anyway! Government being the great satan and all. Thank God it's way above my paygrade but , as always, the good guys will end up hurting and those that chose a different path will do what they want anyway.
  11. As we can see from the posts so far, this is such a politically toxic issue that making any headway will be fraught with difficulty and delay. I am working in a Coalition HQ with lots of (usually) very reasonable and sane Americans but even they are visibly torn over the issue. Perhaps, sadly, the answer is to make schools in the US safer. Panic buttons that drop shutters and make classrooms safe rooms, maybe active shooters on the staff etc. Unpalatable to us in the UK but perhaps the best way forward in the US. Blind adherence to 18th century law is probably irrational (perhaps they should be limited to carrying flintlocks...that would reduce the body count!) but is too ingrained in the US psyche. You must remember that they stem from religious fundamentalists who were (self) expelled from the UK! Imagine the uproar in UK if legislation was brought in to ban dog ownership!


  12. Avoid all the flak of even trying to go down this route, just raises US taxes to increase the security at schools.

    The security could be based on a threat level, if a state within itself chooses to exercise some form f gun control it doesn't need to provide as much security at schools.

    I know this isn't going to completely get away from the threat of more school slayings, but it leaves the decision on the US populace, which is what is important to them.

    But if there is a ban or voluntary surrendering of arms it needs to be all. It makes not a jot of difference to a small child a hand gun or assault rifle.
  13. Guns are banned on school property and within a surrounding area of the school. That's one of the reasons these idiots choose them. More gun laws wouldn't have stopped this. The guns were legally owned, the shooter killed his mother and took her guns. He had tried to buy guns and was denied. He broke into a locked school to do this. Banning certain types of guns isn't going to make any difference just get politicians more votes, because look like they're doing something.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like Like x 2
  14. blue-sophist

    blue-sophist LE Good Egg (charities)

    I have no doubt that the Government will be seen to try to do something. I also wager a shiny sixpence that whatever they try to do will be opposed vigorously, and any measure left on the table [such as noted previously] will be completely ineffectual - as I suspect was the ban on 10+round magazines, etc. Even a ban on full-auto wouldn't achieve anything, as that's either easily fixed or already in existence.
  15. I think Obama would be mad to even attempt it. They say that hard cases make for bad laws and I think this, along with Hungerford, Dunblane and whatever tragedy triggered the Dangerous Dogs Act landing on the statute books, is just another example of that.

    Firstly these school shootings aren't really a crime in the way an armed robbery is, they're an act of homicidal madness and how, given the existing levels of gun ownership, they could ever legislate effectively to stop another one happening is beyond me.

    It'll just end up with a lot of well intentioned, but hoplessly wide of the mark rules that fail to prevent a re-currence of the iniital incident, he'll upset untold numbers of people which will damage his ability to get other good stuff done and when the next massacre happens they'll just point at him and say:'****'.

    Politically they should just lay the blame for these things firmly at the feet of the NRA and put the pressure on the industry to sort itself out and come up with some proposals themselves.