Americans and guns

[Apophis]

There has to be a compromise between a total gun ban (like the UK) and the Wild West throwback that is (some states of) the US.

You need to pass a proficiency test to obtain a licence to a) drive a car (lethal weapon) or b) ride a motorcycle (instrument of Satan), c) fly a plane (9/11 anyone?) and d) run a mobile burger van(a & b), so why not test people's proficiency and psychological aptitude before allowing them to own a firearm?

I doubt there's anyone in the UK who couldn't procure a (illegal) handgun within a couple of weeks if they really wanted to...

I would support this.  You are required in most US states to pass such an exam in order to carry a concealed weapon, but not all states.  The issue with this is once again one of legality vs. illegality,  is someone intent on committing murder going to care about what permits they have and the legality of the weapon they carry?

In this case,  it would have at least identified the kid as having some psychological issues, or so one would hope, and may have saved lives.  But considering what I have read about the kid,  it may have only delayed the inevitable.

[delanvital]

You are required in most US states to pass such an exam in order to carry a concealed weapon

Ehm.. concealed? So if I carry my M16 out in the open I don't?

[Nefertem]

Ehm.. concealed? So if I carry my M16 out in the open I don't?

Well people would duck for cover or run away when they saw you coming with the weapon :wink:
Seriously though, I think whats meant is that, you are allowed to own a weapon, but you're not allowed to walk around with it for everyone to see.. For self defense only and such, me thinks? (which is the subject here as far as I can understand. Should people be allowed to carry them for self defense or not - would it help etc.)

Anyways, people have said what I wanted to say so far.. Ill go back to being a spectator in the discussion again now :ninja:

[delanvital]

Seriously though, I think whats meant is that, you are allowed to own a weapon, but you're not allowed to walk around with it for everyone to see..

Okay.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9030529

[Apophis]

Ehm.. concealed? So if I carry my M16 out in the open I don't?

That depends on the state and local laws.  In some states it would be illegal to even own, in others it would only be illegal to transport without a permit, yet in others it's completely legal to carry (under certain circumstances).

You can't just walk into a shopping mall with an M16 though.  You would get in trouble for that.

[Apophis]

Okay.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9030529

That is quite accurate.  These situations are very rare, but the media goes so crazy over them trying to out-do the other media outlets and get better ratings you'd never know it.  

Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't stop things like this.  I'm not sure why, with this kids history, he was even able to PURCHASE a gun.  Well.  I know why,  but I'm shocked that he was able to.

[Bob]

These situations are very rare

No offense meant, but compared to the rest of the world, it can almost seem normal (normal is probably not the best word here, but in the lack of something better atm.) that these things happen in America :g:

[suicidal_monkey]

legalising gun ownership, or rather making it easier to own a gun (e.g. farmers in the UK seem to be able to own shotguns so there must be some sort of licensing here...) would just meant there were more guns out there. Once there are more guns out there there would be more people getting shot. Bit of road-rage = bang, cheating partner = bang, drunken rage = bang, etc etc. It's hard to tell with everyone just how likely they are to fly into uncontrolled rages.

At the moment occasionally some crazy will get a gun into a no-weapons zone and go on a killing spree. If people were allowed to carry them about by default the crazies would just get weapons in more easily as it'd be normal (some hopefully get caught before they start killing people) and there'd be an increase in guns being used during exceptionally emotive arguments. Once the guns are drawn neither party is going to want to lower first as they probably don't trust the person pointing a gun at them.

Strict gun controls ftw. Give mm-wave and similar tech a little longer and we'll be able to scan crowds for weapons and suchlike automatically. Done properly it shouldn't be an invasion of privacy, or at the worst a very temporary one unless the computer believes it can see a weapon concealed on your person :norty:.

edit: perhaps the other extreme argument of detaining people who are thought of as likely to become violent before they have actually committed any crime is a better extreme solution than handing out guns. It still just doesn't sound right. Thought Police coming soon to a city near you?

edit2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6572743.stm
apparently he'd been referred to a psychiatric ward a year before, a judge had ruled he was a danger to himself and to others, and yet he slipped through the net/system. Some people flip out, most don't, ...I hope