Oregon college shooting

[Icey]

I see both sides of the debate.

Obviously I agree with background checks being done on all firearm owners, although as aforesaid, that wouldn't prevent some ordinary person from cracking, and you're right in that the criminal element'd still obtain the weapons whether they were allowed to legitimately buy a gun or not.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about if guns were taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, they'd be at the mercy of the government. Of course they have guns, as do our own security forces, but we don't think: "Well THEY have them, so we should be able to as well". Over here, the general public don't feel under threat at all, even in areas which have a higher proportion of criminal activity. It's only those who might be connected to these people who feel the need to arm themselves in defence.

I concede that during the last London riots, where burning and looting spread to other cities as well, it was pretty scary. A couple of people had their doors broken down and rioters got inside. It must've been terrifying, although the residents weren't hurt. We have a bit of gang-related crime, which usually stays within the confines of their "patch", and there are infrequent outbursts from folk who just flip - as anywhere - but we still don't see the need to arm ourselves for personal protection, because law-abiding folk aren't the usual targets. The wealthy have more to worry about. Several professional football players've had intruders in their homes (one very recently), and they lived in gated mansions where security's supposed to be high, but again, these two were frightened, but unharmed.

If I found some threatening stranger in our property, I'm sure I'd feel that carrying a gun'd give me more confidence to deal with the situation, but we have them for sporting purposes only, and I wouldn't fancy blasting someone to kingdom come and going to jail, just for the sake of a knee-jerk reaction.

When you have a law which allows anyone to own a weapon like that, you're bound to have more casualties/fatalities, and the simple fact is, that yes, prohibition wouldn't stop someone from making a bomb or running riot with a machete, blah blah, but yes, I DO think that incidences'd drop.

It's difficult to argue for or against, because there're advantages and downsides to both. When you live in a place where gun use's frequent, it seems normal to want to protect yourself, but for those of us who live life at a slower pace and have no reason to fear being targeted, although it COULD happen, and occasionally does, most of us see the problem differently.

[brandtrn]

When I talked about disarmed citizens being at the mercy of the government, I was thinking of history. Hitler disarmed the Germans, Stalin disarmed the Russians, etc., and we have seen the position that those people were left in. Is America gearing up to be the next "police state?" Perhaps not, but our government is giving several indications that they are, indeed, headed in that direction. With an unarmed populace, subduing those of us who still cherish our liberty might not be a problem. It still might not be a problem for them, considering that government troops are far better armed than the average citizen. But -- there are *still* some who (unlike the rest of the lemmings) won't go down without a fight...as the New Hampshire state motto says (and which I cherish, since I'm a member of the Free State Project and plan to move there), "live free or die."

[yogi]

"live free or die." So I take it New Hampshire folks condone what happened in Oregon. Why not? They are 3000 miles apart.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about if guns were taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, they'd be at the mercy of the government. Of course they have guns, as do our own security forces, but we don't think: "Well THEY have them, so we should be able to as well". Over here, the general public don't feel under threat at all, even in areas which have a higher proportion of criminal activity. It's only those who might be connected to these people who feel the need to arm themselves in defence.

I've given the explanation for Americans fearing a tyrannical government as being the foundation for the "freedom" to own guns in America. This perceived threat is countered by our constitution, the Bill of rights, and all the amendments that go with said documents. When this country was first settled and then became sovereign the atmosphere was much different than today. The fear of government was the reason why people came here in the first place. Think about the massive immigration problem in Europe today. Many of the displaced persons are trying to escape the government under which they were living - because they had no guns to fight back. The people who wrote our constitution and founded this country were in a similar circumstance. Thus we have a country whose freedoms are clearly stated and whose rights are worth fighting for.

The paranoia of our founding fathers still lives today and is vocalized by the conservative minded people in our citizenry. The more liberal among us realize that several hundred years of history could have changed the landscape and the paranoia should be directed inward and not at the government. I sympathize with Cindy given that I know her husband came from a place that to this day is being governed by the same type of tyrants from which our founding fathers were escaping. He certainly has an awareness of how bad things can be. The flaw in that thinking is that the environment here is not the same. The history, and thus attitude, of the American people is not European and never will be. This translates into a need to change attitudes before the present issues with gun ownership can be resolved.

Good luck with that.

[Icey]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

I can perfectly understand why people over there feel they have the right to own weapons and to use them for protection if necessary.. There was never any question of that in my mind, just that I think it causes more problems when they do.

A change of mindset/attitude or however you want to term it, might reduce the appalling tragedies that've happened. It won't stop them altogether, whether there, in Europe or anywhere else. If guns're available, someone's going to get hold of them by fair means or foul, and they're going to be misused at times. I don't see any change happening quickly, but maybe our grandchildren and their children'll be educated into looking at the problem in a different light.

One of the new concerns that's being watched very carefully, is in the making of guns via 3D printers. Just about any object can be created by these machines, so long as the user has the template for whatever they're producing. If certain groups get hold of this technology, and I don't doubt they're looking into it or already have it, they can produce all the components necessary for working weapons. British fighter forces've already made parts for their aircraft using this system, along with prosthetic limbs and all sorts of helpful stuff, but it's the fact of what CAN be made which's the worrying part.

[yogi]

Printing guns is not as simple going to Tesco and buying a box of paper and ink for your printer. It's quite expensive and an elaborate process. However, it is not totally out of reach and working firearms have indeed been produced already via printing. Besides, I'm not much worried about it because obtaining ammunition not as easy as printing it out. As far as I know there is no way to print gunpowder yet.

[Icey]

Well that was my hopeful way of thinking, but look ....

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314- ... s-bullets/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3 ... _and_parts

Unfortunately, it looks as though gunpowder's obtainable on the net as well, and fairly easy to make at home in your back shed. : (

[yogi]

From the links you posted ...

And while his design isn’t easily replicated because the rounds must be individually machined for now, it may represent another step towards durable, practical, printed guns—even semi-automatic ones.

The Solid Concepts replica of Browning 1911 was the first 3D printed metal gun[3][3][4][4] created using more than 38 printed parts,[5] it successfully fired more than 600 bullets without damaging the gun.[4] The metal printer used to create the weapon cost between $500,000 to $1,000,000 at the time the gun was created (November 2013).[4]

I'm not worried.

[Icey]

LOL - well that's a fair amount of money, so I don't think too many individual people're going to be rushing to buy those printers, true, but as the prices drop ....