Pools are well-regulated. There are guidelines on access control and insurance liability. It would be good if guns had more regulation than swimming pools. Guns aren't just a risk to your family (and statistically, they are a MASSIVE risk to you family), they are a risk to everyone. It's hard to take a concealed swimming pool into a movie theater and drown everyone.

Anyway, nobody is trying to take away your guns. Although I wouldn't really be opposed to it (e.g. I'd be happy living in one of the many peaceful nations with strict gun control laws). I've been hunting and skeet shooting a handful of times and I think it's fair to say that long rifles and shotguns are a part of American culture for a hundred plus years. But I wouldn't care if all semi-automatic handguns and rifles were banned.

I totally agree. Firearms are items that should be highly regulated. Much more regulated than they currently are in the USA.

A registration scheme, compulsory background checks, mandatory safe storage, a requirement for membership at a firearms club for ownership of centrefire semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and a nation-wide free mental health system would be the path I would pursue.

Aside from the overall tone of your previous rambling sentiments on the subject (ahem, "rapid reload of semi-automatic and double-action revolvers"), the emphasis with "parenthesis" of a single word with clear intent to elicit ( showcasing an all-to-familiar lack of, "control" ), the subjective inference as to my inspiration or motivation for posting this video/ it's timing or titling...(down votes?! WHERE?!)???....I'd say your initial analysis reads like horse shit.
Thank you for your passionate observations and curiosity.

Oh and, down votes for any reason I heartily endorse and encourage,...Thanks for the advice on behalf of the three already with jerking-knees long-inebriate with the Kool-Aide, and for those to follow there, shcveddmeyer

Actually, it is.

http://videosift.com/video/Assault-Rifle-vs-Sporting-Rifle

Assult rifle is fully automatic, a "sporting rifle" is semi automatic.

really disappointed in stewart. I think we should take care of people. Upper class is doing better, middle class is getting smaller, poor is being taxed more. Most people do not under stand what a semi-automatic gun qualify as.

Hey America! If you really want to "save" lives how about getting the fat asses off the couch. 20 kids dead... it is terrible, but how about texting drivers, super-size meals, buckets of movie size sodas?

I can't wait for the next bandwagon to jump on.

What's with your inappropriate sarcasm? It didn't add to the discussion.

It may be semantics in your opinion but it's not like there is any confusion between the word "design" and "use". It's engineering. A firearm is designed to do something - and that something is not killing. We designed it to propel a projectile at high speed. We use it for multiple purposes - but mostly we use it for punching holes in paper or shooting clay pigeons. Yes, it is fantastic at killing animals/humans. We use it for that too. Yes, when it was first designed that was its primary purpose of use. But that does not mean it does not have secondary purposes. I'd guess that more rounds are fired at paper targets and for hunting animals than at people each year in the USA (and probably by several orders of magnitude).

Knives are fantastic at killing. A sword (which is a long knife) does a lot more vascular damage than a 7.62 mm NATO round (i.e. it is better at killing). Knives were superseded because they are not a ranged weapon.

You are suggesting that the tens of millions of sporting firearm users in the USA do not constitute a legitimate use of firearms. That is short sighted.

We accept the premature deaths of car crashs because it is a convenience we are not willing to live without. The collateral damage of people dying in vehicles is a cost we are happy to accept to continue using this convenience (we don't need cars to get around - they just make travelling easier). You'll find that the huge amount of legislation surrounding vehicles is to reduce deaths and the cost that crashes impose on the economy (which is billions).

The same for knives (humankind's most used murder weapon). We aren't giving it up as a kitchen tool just because someone used it for murder.

The same should of course apply to firearms.

America should have better legislation surrounding firearms (something I fully support). That's a no brainer. A full registration scheme for all firearms should be enacted. Firearm safes should be mandatory. Criminal and mental health background checks should be mandatory. For ownership of semi-automatic/automatic military style weapons you should need to be in a firearms club. This would both legitimise its ownership and use - so you can't just own one for the hell of it but it doesn't stop you from owning it in total (preserving the 2nd amendment). It would also force social contact - so other club members will recognise if a person should not be a club member and therefore a non-owner of these firearm types.

America could also implement a nationwide free mental health system. It basically has none. This is probably the most important thing it could do.

What are your suggestions for legislation?

(btw I'm not American - but I've closely followed this topic for years).

Wow, I see so many viewing fails here.

1) Yes, some of these people are gun novices. But these people got more training in gun-handling and marksmanship than is required by most states in the U.S. and they STILL failed to stop the shooter.

2) The whole point of the video is that it takes hundreds of hours of training under stress (like in this scenario) in order for people to overcome their natural instincts and avoid a) freezing up or b) accidentally shooting themselves or another innocent in the confusion.

3) How many gun carriers (barring ex-military or police) have had the kind of training mentioned in Point #2? Of those that have, how many continue to put in the training hours necessary to not lose the skill?

It's all great spouting hypotheticals about how a CCW would have saved the day at Sandy Hook, but this video shows that's a patently false statement. What might have resulted in less casualties would have been a CCW in the hands of a highly disciplined individual with combat firearms training experience. How many gun carrying Americans do you know who fit that description?

And even if such a person HAD been in the school on that day, with the shooter wearing a bullet-proof vest and utilizing a semi-automatic rifle, there's no guarantee the outcome would have been any different.

More guns in the hands of undertrained Americans is not the answer. Modifying the social system so that identifying and dealing with mentally unstable individuals before they go on shooting rampages is a priority, though, would be a step in the right direction.

Sounds like they're headed in the direction Australia did in 1996, with a ban on semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. Though without a gun-buy back and destruction scheme, it would be pretty useless.

The Australian government raised $500m (through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy) for the scheme, which led to the destruction of 631,000 firearms (mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns).

Roughly 80% of Australians supported the action by the government; main opposers being sporting shooters and farmers.

Wait, has it been established that the killer was an avid gamer? That would make him completely typical, of course, but still I hadn't heard that.

I honestly don't think that video game or Hollywood violence is to blame for this. I think REAL violence, glorified by the news media, has far more impact, because most mentally ill people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I think the blame falls squarely on our inability to identify serious mental health issues and easy access to semi-automatic firearms.

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

I was raised around guns, I've been trained with guns through the Hunter Core program. Purely for hunting game. (not human targets on the shooting range - mostly tin cans and paper circle targets.)

I've seen rampant gun use by teens because they thought guns were cool. I've seen my dog get his eye shot out because the neighbor kid didn't know the gun he just loaded was loaded. I've seen powder burns up the arm of a friend who thought it would be cool to saw off a shot gun and fire it. I was standing there when a good friend fired a rifle and the barrel exploded showering us all in shrapnel as it ripped apart his ear drums.

I was trained to handle guns, how to hold them, and all the safety and respect that anyone needs to handle guns. But that doesn't change the fact that they can be dangerous.

I live in Canada, yes, I could go out and get a gun any time I wanted, but our culture on guns is different. I don't feel the need to own one and I know the guy next to me isn't holding a concealed one. I have never let my kids have any toy gun that looked like a gun. (Nerf is ok) Guns are never toys - ever - and I've taught my kids that their entire life, just like matches and fire aren't toys. You just don't mess around with them.

I don't own a gun now nor do I ever see myself owning one. I like the culture of not needing to own one. I can understand a rifle and a shotgun for hunting (locked in a gun safe when not used.) I don't understand and cannot support the necessity for handguns and automatic weapons. Even semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary. Having an Uzi is just plain ridiculous as it's only intended use is for killing humans. That's just how I feel.

On the flip side....

I do understand the need for a militia. They are an integral part of a free society. the last defense against invasion and more so against government forces when the military is turned against the people.

I just don't believe military weapons should be kept in a home environment. There are any number of places they can be stored but at the very least - a proper gun locker with a lock is the only alternative. I don't care whether you have kids living in the home or not. I also don't think anyone should be in possession of military weapons unless they are registered with the militia.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, examine, second amendment' to 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, MP5, examine, second amendment' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi autopmatic, examine, 2nd amendment' to 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, examine, second amendment' - edited by xxovercastxx

It would be hard to say what their intent was if you saw someone carrying such a ridiculously looking powerful gun. Kudos for the professional stop, and what a bunch of time wasting douches. What reason would they have to be carrying a semi-automatic firearm, without a case, and slung over the shoulder anyways? I think they could intimidate other citizens, and that would be reason enough to say wtf, please desist.

>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.