It's surely better that guns are banned altogether, apart from the Armed Forces. That means children won't need protecting. The people have guns to protect their children. Does that stop massacres? I appreciate that there will need to be a change of mind by the people. A change the Arms industry does not want and will fight against. It's not concerned with defending children - just its business. Your Constitution was for a different time. I'm from the UK. We have a ban on guns except for those who need them for legitimate purposes. Guns are rarely used in this country except by criminals and they are dealt with severely. A few of our police carry guns for specific duties and some others are licensed if needed. Neither the public nor most police officers want them to be armed.
It's simply a vicious circle. The massacre of innocent children by guns and you have people wanting other people to be armed to protect those who are protecting children. The bosses of the arms industry and dealers are sitting back and rubbing their hands. Their pretence of sorrow is invalidated by their eagerness to sell more arms. Violence begets violence, hate begets hate. (Martin Luther King). The USA is heading down a dangerous road which, I believe, will lead to a moral and physical destruction. It's already in operation in US politics and promulgated by Trump.
Are you suggesting we Americans only buy guns because we care about the profits of gun manufacturers? I was under the impression that people only buy things because they want those things... If you want to try to convince people to not want firearms anymore, be my guest. But if you think you can force people to stop buying guns either with laws or by eliminating the manufacturers, then I have to ask- what do you think about the war on drugs? Is it working, and is it beneficial? Because it seems to me that people have no problem getting the things they want regardless of laws. The reason for that is when there is a demand, someone will always create the supply to meet that demand so they can profit from doing so. In the US we have legitimate arms manufacturers who profit from the demand. If we didn't, then we would be like every other nation on earth where it is instead smugglers and even underground manufacturers that meet the demand. Why do you think that would be a preferential situation? Guns were rarely used in your country even when they were legal. The only reason you were able to ban them is because there wasn't enough opposition to the ban. And I also don't think your assessment that guns are only permitted for 'legitimate purposes' is accurate. Rather, only people who are friends with the govt can get guns in the UK. Self defense is a legitimate purpose, and yet not everyone who needs to defend themself in the UK is able to get a gun permit, while other people who are well connected with friends in the govt CAN get a permit even though they already employ professional armed security to defend themselves (do they really 'need' to have a gun of their own?). Seems to me gun permits in the UK are only for the political and financial elite (and their friends/employees), whereas in the US we have more equal rights, at least in the context of self defense and personal security. Would you be interested to learn that with rare exception, our school shootings only happen at schools that do not employ full time armed security? Would you care to guess why violent criminals almost solely target schools that do not have armed defenders?
In the UK, access to firearms is subject to some of the strictest control measures in the world1. Members of the public may own rifles and shotguns subject to licensing, but most handguns have been banned since the Dunblane school massacre in 19961. To own a gun in the UK, you must be assessed by the licensing authority (the police) as “not posing a threat to public safety and having good reason to own the firearm”23. A good reason to own a firearm can include needing one for “a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure”2.Mass shootings are extremely rare in the United Kingdom. There have only been five major shootings carried out by a civilian in British history: the 1987 Hungerford massacre; 1989 Monkseaton shootings;[3][4] the 1996 Dunblane massacre; the 2010 Cumbria shootings[5] and the 2021 Plymouth shooting.[6] Concerns are raised periodically over the availability of illegal firearm. I think you have a peculiar idea of gun owning in this country. If you have a legitimate reason for owning a gun - even as someone whose hobby is shooting on a rifle range - and can pass the required character tests you can own a gun subject to keeping it in a secured place. Farmers, gamekeepers etc can own one. Regardless of your status in life you can own a rifle/shotgun for a legitimate purpose if you pass the reqiurments for owning one. Would you care to guess how many school massacres would be avoided if criminals and the general public did not have access to guns?
With no access to guns, there of course cannot be shootings. But that's a specious argument since there is no way to prevent access to guns. There is only ways to prevent legal access to guns. And as we've learned trying to keep people from doing drugs, making things illegal does not in any way reduce access to them. Gun control works so well in the UK because there is so little demand for guns in the UK. That's all there is to it. Or would you suggest that a large portion of the UK population wants guns but can't get them? Clearly there is some, and this how they get their guns: How illegal firearms find their way onto British streets despite tough laws (theconversation.com) But also clearly there is nowhere near the same level of demand as there is in the US. If someone wanted to shoot up a school in the UK, they easily could via smugglers, the dark web or the underground firearms manufacturers that are and always have operated in the UK despite the law. For whatever reason, no one in the UK wants to shoot up a school. Figuring out why anyone in the US would want to shoot up a school is going to go a lot further in preventing it from happening than trying to ban the billion guns we already have and trying to fight the market demand for guns that is not going to be reduced with laws. And I'm very familiar with your permitting process. It allows for purely subjective interpretation of 'need' and 'threat' and there is no effective recourse for people who are denied a permit. In such a situation, it will always turn out that everyone the govt wants to have guns will get guns and everyone the govt doesn't want to have guns will only be able to get them illegally by becoming a criminal. Its an elitist system pure and simple, its just really well obfuscated within a massive and unaccountable bureaucracy. I'm pleased you enjoy it, but bureaucratic elitism is not for Americans.
And the Arms Industry isn't part of an elite Beaurocracy, shaping policy. I really don't think you understand the UK system of Government.
Apologies for delay. I am long retired but have a hobby of growing up to 1000 flower plants each years. This takes much of my time. The arms INDUSTRY is, in my opinion, inclusive of both. Both are sanctioned by the Government. Both make large profits for their rich bosses. Both direct Government policy by influence on the Government. It is the Government that sanctions the production of new weapons and their use. It is the Government - in your case - the POTUS who can sanction war. In the same was the car INDUSTRY isn't just one manufacturer nor is it just the production of the complete vehicle.
I am just trying to understand your position. Are you suggesting that we disarm all private citizens?
My position is simple. We don't carry guns in the UK as we have no need of them. The occasional criminal use of them is dealt with by the police. We have very few actual shootings so we are not perfect, but allowing anyone to have a gun in this country will lead to the US situation. No thanks. Who knows. Perhaps if you had updated your constitution a century or so ago, you might not need arms now. A habit is not easy to get rid of. Unlike New Year resolution that are often broken. The one resolution I made in January was not to eat Easter Eggs at Easter so I haven't. I've saved them for Lent.
I hope you are right and you never need a firearm. Throughout history, many thought the same and were wrong. The vast majority of murder is committed by government. the vast majority of victims were unarmed.
Its just a forum. You can take as long as you want to respond. I'm not sure what you mean 'sanctioned by the govt.' The US Government regulates what can be sold and to whom to various extents, not so much what can be manufactured. Generally manufacturers only make what they know will be sold. But that depends on the market more than the govt. A firearm company could, if they wanted and if they had the resources, manufacture a billion sporting rifles. But there's not a billion buyers for them, so they won't. And there's one big difference between the civilian market and the military market. Our military (government) contracts a manufacturer to fill an order, then that order is produced. But in the civilian arms market, its retailers that order product, and very often the manufacturer will produce more than what's ordered to keep stock on hand for additional orders. The supply is driven by demand, not by the govt. And while some of the manufacturers that provide small arms for the military also manufacture a civilian version for sale to the general public, most of the civilian arms manufacturers do not also manufacture a version for the military. I mean I'm sure they would sell to our military if our military was interested, but the military has specific requirements that most of the firearm manufacturers dont bother to meet because the military doesn't typically buy small arms on demand, rather it orders a stock of what it expects it will need over a certain time period. In the context of arms money driving policy- that is definitely true on the military side of things. But that's because the military will pay any price, its buying the big ticket items- tanks, helicopters, guided missiles, artillery shells by the trainload, and it has a high rate of replacement in times of war where much of what it buys will be destroyed and need to be replaced. This last thing is what makes war so profitable. The civilian arms market is a drop in the bucket comparatively, its prices are 100% driven by consumer demand rather than by logistical administration, and individual consumers typically only buy one or a few, not a steady stream of replacements for battle losses.
And arguably under the Constitution the federal government's jurisdiction is only supposed to remained confined to sales that take place between different states, or laws to make sure sales do not happen between people living in different states. But over the years there has been endless legislative creep, where the federal government has passed laws and asserted jurisdiction spilling over beyond those bounds. It's a delicate matter.
[ And there's one big difference between the civilian market and the military market. Our military (government) contracts a manufacturer to fill an order, then that order is produced. But in the civilian arms market, its retailers that order product, and very often the manufacturer will produce more than what's ordered to keep stock on hand for additional orders. The supply is driven by demand, not by the govt. And while some of the manufacturers that provide small arms for the military also manufacture a civilian version for sale to the general public, most of the civilian arms manufacturers do not also manufacture a version for the military. I mean I'm sure they would sell to our military if our military was interested, but the military has specific requirements that most of the firearm manufacturers dont bother to meet because the military doesn't typically buy small arms on demand, rather it orders a stock of what it expects it will need over a certain time period. In the context of arms money driving policy- that is definitely true on the military side of things. But that's because the military will pay any price, its buying the big ticket items- tanks, helicopters, guided missiles, artillery shells by the trainload, and it has a high rate of replacement in times of war where much of what it buys will be destroyed and need to be replaced. This last thing is what makes war so profitable. The civilian arms market is a drop in the bucket comparatively, its prices are 100% driven by consumer demand rather than by logistical administration, and individual consumers typically only buy one or a few, not a steady stream of replacements for battle losses.[/QUOTE] 'Sanctioned by the Goverment' means the Goverment are happy to allow it to go ahead. It's like saying 'go ahead, we are not going to stop you'. The only advantage of your civilian arms dealers is that the Government has the ability to take over relevant factories to manufacture the right arms for the time if invasion seems near. Just as it did with Emergency shipbuilding programme run by the U.S. Maritime Commission. I can understand your post but it seems rather a pointless exercise allowing people to have guns and expecting everyone to use them sensibily. [
