Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to impose a foreign culture on any country and its people.

So time to bring the 2nd amendment into the 21st century. The right to bear arms=yes. The right to bear arms as the individual sees fit=no.

Bring it into the 21s century by restricting that right to owning 1 rifle & 1 handgun.

I cannot see any reason why a civilian wants a semi-automatic assault weapon. The excuse of "to protect oneself & property" is sheer B/S.

Should teachers be allowed to carry guns in the schools? Should students of a certain age be allowed to carry guns at school?

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to impose a foreign culture on any country and its people.

So time to bring the 2nd amendment into the 21st century. The right to bear arms=yes. The right to bear arms as the individual sees fit=no.

Bring it into the 21s century by restricting that right to owning 1 rifle & 1 handgun.

I cannot see any reason why a civilian wants a semi-automatic assault weapon. The excuse of "to protect oneself & property" is sheer B/S.

Just a wish about the USA's 2nd Amendment.

A non starter.

Which just proves to ALL non-Americans that both tis citizens & politicians really don't give a crap about preventing the incidents they are seeing occur.

So we can expect to see more stupidity from you lot :-(

Should teachers be allowed to carry guns in the schools? Should students of a certain age be allowed to carry guns at school?

Interesting read. har...

Flashback 30 Years: Guns Were in Schools ... and Nothing Happened

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/flashback-30-years-guns-schools-nothing-happened

The millennial generation might be surprised to learn that theirs is the first without guns in school. Just 30 years ago, high school kids rode the bus with rifles and shot their guns at high school rifle ranges.

After another school shooting, it's time to ask: what changed?

Cross guns off the list of things that changed in thirty years. In 1985, semi-automatic rifles existed, and a semi-automatic rifle was used in Florida. Guns didn’t suddenly decide to visit mayhem on schools. Guns can’t decide.

---

...

The excuse of "to protect oneself & property" is sheer B/S.

I would say the excuse of "to protect oneself & property" against mass shooters and criminals is sheer B/S.
Won't work and you most likely wind up dead trying to "protect" yourself or perhaps even worse get more people killed.
The 2'nd amendment doesn't take that fact in account.

Bring it into the 21s century...

And this was already done as I have noted. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is no mention of which "Arms" they are allowed to keep and bear. It was already determined that full-auto was not covered, and surprisingly everyone seems OK with this. Why is this not just as much of an "infringement" as banning semi-auto rifles? Or even semi-auto pistols with large magazines? Some states already have restrictions on these and buyers need to be licensed and weapons registered.

Time and time again I see rebuttals that firearms control doesn't work because criminals won't listen to the laws etc. etc. I haven't seen any factual, numerical data to support these claims. Rather, in practice there is ample evidence that it does work. A good example as I think has been mentioned is Australia, where after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre of 35 people by a shooter also with a semi-automatic assault rifle, multi-partisan legislation banning the ownership (IIRC) and purchase of these weapons was passed. There had been 13 mass shootings in the 18 years before this legislation. After? Not one in the 21 years since.

Also in 1996, the Dunblane Primary School massacre in Britain which was carried out with handguns caused the UK to introduce a general ownership ban on them, and there has not been a single school massacre in the 21+ years since (the last major one, not at a school, which had caused a long-gun restriction was in 1987.)

I can also provide an example from my own country... in 2014 a radical Islamist convert named Michael Zehaf-Bibeau decided to shoot up the Canadian capitol building, the Houses of Parliament in Ottawa. He tried to buy a black-market assault rifle, but they were so expensive and hard to find given the restrictions on ownership that he couldn't find one he could afford. He ended up storming Parliament with a vintage .30-.30 lever-action Winchester. Sadly he shot dead a soldier on ceremonial sentry duty before he could load his rifle (they are required to keep it unloaded as part of their duties... perhaps that is no longer the case.) Rather underpowered for an offensive action. the Sergeant-At-Arms was able to retrieve his sidearm from its lockbox and shoot him... after taking out a terrorist, he was able to return to his duties of carrying a large ceremonial golden sceptre while in rather ancient garb.

---

...Flashback 30 Years:...

Another right wing link sadly so it deserves a good yawn.

A wonder how a referendum to change things would go over there seeing as 60% of your nation want tighter gun laws.

Cheers.

...Flashback 30 Years:...

Another right wing link sadly so it deserves a good yawn.

A wonder how a referendum to change things would go over there seeing as 60% of your nation want tighter gun laws.

Cheers.

Ah! the source card.

Don't like that source, here take your pick then. har...

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Flashback+30+Years%3A+Guns+Were+in+Schools&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR3N&pc=EUPP_

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&safe=off&source=hp&ei=V8aIWvmYEobOjwOMkoewDw&q=Flashback+30+Years%3A+Guns+Were+in+Schools&oq=Flashback+30+Years%3A+Guns+Were+in+Schools&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6670.6670.0.7908.5.3.0.0.0.0.230.230.2-1.3.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..2.0.0.0...55.82fUCmPwid0

---

...

pjmedia has what happened wrong. they obviously want to push a idiot's agenda.

yes something did happen. it is called the war on drugs.

something else happened. SCOTUS said crazy people have a right to be crazy.

It is hard to understand how these events have impacted our culture, especially for binary brains. They are the root cause of America today.

It obviously still doesn't dawn on you does it, so I'll just keep on yawning. ;-)

Cheers.

yes something did happen. it is called the war on drugs.

That has gone well hasn't it. har...

Maybe if they won the war on drugs life would be better.

---

...

Time and time again I see rebuttals that firearms control doesn't work because criminals won't listen to the laws etc. etc. I haven't seen any factual, numerical data to support these claims.

The firearms control in Sweden is very strict.
Despite that 42 people have been killed and 140 people have been injured in the total of 320 shootings in Sweden during 2017.
It's more than twice as many as just five years ago!
Yes. criminals won't listen to the laws and they use illegal weapons smuggled mostly from the Balkans.
Mainly because they are cheaper than legal weapons!

List of firearm deaths by country per 100,000 per year

United States: 10.54
Sweden: 1.47

Less than one-seventh.

---

List of firearm deaths by country per 100,000 per year
United States: 10.54
Sweden: 1.47
Less than one-seventh.

My point it's more than twice as many killed by gun shooters then as just five years ago despite of a very strict gun control.
An increase of more than 100%!
Since the tool gun control doesn't work here so well what are chances that it will work in the US?

List of firearm deaths by country per 100,000 per year
United States: 10.54
Sweden: 1.47
Less than one-seventh.

My point it's more than twice as many killed by gun shooters then as just five years ago despite of a very strict gun control.
An increase of more than 100%!
Since the tool gun control doesn't work here so well what are chances that it will work in the US?

Does Sweden have a war on drugs? Do they have asset forfeiture? Do they have "structuring?" Do they have money laundering?
Or have they created a climate when the government is seen as an occupying gang of thugs?

I think part of the problem is too many people having kids who don't have the emotional or financial abilities to do so. Easy access to guns doesn't help.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Does Sweden have a war on drugs?

Yes.

Do they have asset forfeiture?

Yes.

Do they have "structuring?"

Yes

Do they have money laundering?

Yes.

Or have they created a climate when the government is seen as an occupying gang of thugs?

Don't understand the question.

But mass shootings in schools has nothing to do with criminals.
Just easy access to weapons.

I really have been thinking a lot about these shootings, and how the kids get access to guns and why they do what they do. When you come right down to it, I think it's lack of love that drives depressed kids to act out. Broken homes with dysfunctional parents can't supervise kids, and easy access to guns makes a bad situation even worse. Both parents working causes a lot of problems, too. They don't have time for each other, let alone for their kids, and the lack of love hurts everybody. I was spoiled with one parent who worked and one who stayed home and I had a basically idyllic childhood. Would I have become a school shooter if my home life was not as good? I don't think I would have, but my point is, there are many kids neglected out there who are borderline to begin with in how they deal with life, and easy access to guns, either from their parents or friends, is just exacerbating the situation, and making them more likely to act out in a violent way.

How can this be fixed? First of all, we don't need all the material things that we go after. In most cases, both parents don't have to work as long as they can make a reasonable standard of living, but it seems nowadays most people want way more than they can afford, and so inevitably, if there are children involved, the kids suffer from the lack of a solid base at home. I firmly believe in one parent working and one parent staying at home to raise the children right. I think that goes a long way toward helping the marriage stay intact, plus the children get a better quality of life. I'm ok with guns for police and as weapons of war or sport, but not as things that kids turn to as security blankets or to act out their unhappiness with life.

I would gladly give up my right to own a gun. I've never been interested in having one in the first place, but the benefit to me seems very small. If by some unfortunate circumstance I find myself in a situation where I need to use a gun to defend myself, I wouldn't trust my skill or luck to fix things with a gun. And as far as in a group situation at a concert or something similar, I think there's more likelihood I would end up hurting more innocent people. Even a skilled person, in the panic of such a situation, would not likely be able to do much good.

So, what do we do? First of all, I think we need to take a hard look at ourselves and how we live our lives, and whether we want to have children and if we do, I think we need to take that responsibility very seriously. Secondly, I think we all need to let go of guns, and keep that sort of thing to official law enforcement and the army. Using guns for sport isn't really a good idea, and there are so many other things we could do with our time that is much safer and a lot more fun!

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

[quote]I cannot see any reason why a civilian wants a semi-automatic assault weapon. The excuse of "to protect oneself & property" is sheer B/S.[/quote
On this I totally agree,

---

I think part of the problem is too many people having kids who don't have the emotional or financial abilities to do so. Easy access to guns doesn't help.

BINGO!

---

...