most americans just don't get it when it comes to gun ownership rights. no logic at all. I've heard so many stupid arguments after the latest massacre I can't believe my ears

You seem passionately opposed to most Americans owning guns more so than simply harboring a beef with firearms in general-It seems from these determined comments on the subject running from a crack in the spillway that guns are just bad (m'kay), that you are opposed to peeps having guns please let us in on the cogent distillation of your consternation because I am clueless as to how someone can hope to brave a hike through the tundra without proper gear, and you seem like an educated and thoughtful fellow!

If all cops have guns, and most criminals have guns, and there are already enough fucking prisons, THEN (or how about fuck conventional logic because I can't dance so well) Why should I live somewhere where I am unsafe and unsecured without owing a firearm AND, if in choosing to exercise my free will (what a fucking concept, HUH!?) I am then subject to some fucking police-state run-a-round?

Piers Morgan. Who the fuck names their kid Piers?! The guys a moron or is intentionally coming-off as one to appeal to the contingent destined for unadaptive gene-pool elimination.

I've heard enough stupid arguments for the last 23 hours coming from heads in asses from all fronts on the internet and most of the bullshit comes from major news sources, and Piers here..What exactly can't you believe considering who we have to work with in the general pop. in the U.S??

Critically thinking people are part of a planned obsolescence worldwide, brother!

no, man, you misunderstood me. I'm not opposed to americans owning guns. I mean, go ahead; shoot yourselves to death, I don't give a fuck. just saying, seems bloody insane to me ... why would you need policemen then, if all you need is to arm every man, woman and child in america so they can defend themselves against each other? you're not living in the times of the wild wild west any more and you're not some 3rd world country where non-functional states can't provide adequate protection for their citizens ... and don't give me that 2nd amendment bullshit, cause you're all reading it wrong

Piers Moron

The magnitude of my ambivalence on this issue is huge.

this merican totally agrees.

30 vs 12,000

"Yes yours is lower...but...*insert total utter fucking retardation of the human mind here*".

Piers should be on a cooking show...

"Now here's my recipe for pie-in-the-sky"

How then, do you go about removing the guns from America? Essentially we have 1 gun per person (accounted for). So if a wizard could magically snap his fingers and *poof* there went the guns, then yes, I'd say we should get rid of them. But what you're saying is the equivalent of "man, you should really get rid of cancer, it's killing people. You should make cancer illegal."

The poison is already in the well, and you can't get it out, so people do the best they can do: buy guns for protection.

@rottenseed I agree that it won't be an over-night operation. The wingnuts would absolutely freak out if the evil gubment actually did "COME FOR OUR GUNS". We'd have a civil war.

The long view is to start reducing the number of guns produced. Start making it more difficult to get them. Start buying guns back from the citizenry at market prices (and then destroy them.)

This might be a 200 year plan...

200 years?! But I want it NOWWWW!

That makes sense, sort of...except for the fact that there could still be an influx of guns from outside of the US (mainly from Mexico). Unfortunately as the US is continually learning with the drug war, prohibition doesn't work. As long as these things that people want exist, and the technology is there to make it, it will be made, and traded for. Because, like you said, guns are a part of our culture (or the wingnuts culture).

If you want my honest opinion about guns; I don't give a shit if somebody wants to own guns or if they don't. At least nobody's throwing acid in people's faces *ahem*

so true.

Since when did Nancy Grace turn into a guy?

since you started with the cancer analogy -- that's like saying you're going to start smoking (more) because you're afraid you'll get cancer from second-hand smoke. and since everyone else is already smoking cigarettes the best way to deter other people from smoking is to light up yourself. doesn't make any sense, does it?

I think Piers can be sometimes arrogant, but this guy (Prat) doesn't seem to have an argument to stand on.
These gun supporters won't be happy until every person in America needs to carry a gun at all times. This is a philosophy toted and supported by gun manufacturers and retailers at each level, as well people with low intelligence that don't like to be told what to do because they still believe that might makes right.

There is a direct link between people who have low intelligence who choose violence solutions. Those that could not posibly win an argument, who would just as soon pull out thier gun (or large club) and shoot you - there argument solved.

And I believe that's what the gun industry feeds on.

not really because you can't stop second hand smoke with smoking, whereas you can stop home invasions and bad guys with guns, with guns.

The intentions of most legal gun owners are not malicious in nature. Some are just hobbyists, some just have them for protection from those brandishing (most likely) illegal guns looking to do them harm...there's no way of avoiding those situations. If a bad person, such as the coward that took out the children, has horrible intentions, the only thing you can argue is the ease with which he managed to obtain the weapon. It was obviously too easy for a man with mental disabilities to get them. But with the intentions of killing innocent children, there are a hundred ways to do it without a gun. Would he have gone through more trouble had he not had access to guns? Maybe. Maybe not. But he had those horrible intentions and the capacity to carry them out, and that's the horrendous part of this. It's the part that scares every sane person is: how could somebody want to do that?

The reason why the issue has been shifted from "how could somebody do that?" to the means in which he did it, is because humans like to think they have total control of their environment and a wildcard such as mental insanity scares people just as much as our own mortality. Whereas blaming something tangible is easy because we could "technically" stop it. So we end up blaming things like video games and guns.

Sorry I'm trying to avoid other examples (Timothy McVeigh, etc.) because they are hackneyed, but some of them might give an insight as to the cause and the ends being more significant than the means.

On a less personal and more constructive point,

There is no instant way to solve this crisis in the US society. No instant pill that's going to fix things today.

But start with gun manufacturers who are making the guns and filtering mass amounts of firearms into the populous. They created this homeland conflict and continues to feed it. As long as they keep mass producing the guns for consumption, this problem will never go away. Regulations on what can be sold to who and how many is a start. (lets go back to six shooters with a hammer??)

Secondly, education. Teach people to solve problems without the force of might. There may be a way to solve conflict without violence. Education has never made things worse.

Third, Public health. A more concerted effort to identify and counsel those people who need it. Teach problem solving skills and coping skills.

Make it harder to acquire ammunition as well as guns. Not just to the new gun purchaser but at gun shows where most people buy their guns. The second hand market is about as loose on laws as it can get. Most people can get a gun over night and most times in the same day. This tells me that no real process goes into who can get a gun and if the the guns are being used for protection or for crimes.

Mandatory gun storage laws. Lock it up or loose it.

Gun buy-back programs. Not only should these programs exist on an ongoing basis, there should be a surcharge on gun purchases to help fund this initiative. I think the process of eliminating the excess guns is another key gun control.

Gun registry laws were tried in Canada but it was a miserable failed attempt as it was poorly executed. I don't think this can be successful without superior planning. Direct registration of guns already in public hands at a cost to the owners is designed to fail.

A free registration method on initial registration and a surcharge every time a gun is sold and re-licenced to a new owner would allow gun ownership to be tracked much like car ownership. You could tell who owned it previously, who the dealer was who sold it and so on. Then guns could slowly be taken off the streets if they didn't change hands legally or were un-registered to start with.

The argument to a registry program is that only honest people would register their guns, criminals wouldn't. True but it would give authorities license to confiscate and destroy unregistered guns and/or track how they came into wrongful possession..

I can't upvote this purely because of how lowest common denominator the discourse was.

It's time for some adult conversations here and while I may agree with Piers, he did NOT contribute to the discourse in this instance.

A few Korean merchants 20 years ago justifies the deaths of 100+ people (at least) due to spree killers in the intervening years. A man of principles not doubt.

I also like how he alludes that the mother of this spree killer wasn't responsible enough. This is exactly the point Morgan is trying to make. We need laws to dictate RESPONSIBLE gun ownership such as it being legally enforced to have them in safes locked away from those who are mentally ill. Its not rocket surgery.

On this issue, I really like the graphics and the points this guy has put together :

http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/

Basically, more guns => more murders, period

Here in Portland Oregon, A kid with a AR-15 walked into Clackamas Mall on Dec 11 to kill as many people as he could. He shot 3 people and his gun jammed, while he was fixing his jam, a citizen with a conealed carry permt drew his weopon and confronted the shooter, The shooter fled down a stairwell and shot himself. The mall was a gun free zone (the guy with the CCW was breaking the rules) and filled with thousands of holiday shoppers. The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Well, "confronted the shooter" is way over-stating what happened. The guy was standing behind a pillar, trying to decide whether to shoot or not as the killer struggled with his jammed gun. He claims the killer saw him. But did he? This young man doesn't seem to be making it up, he seems genuinely distressed by what happened, not posturing. But I don't know. I'd like to hear from someone other than this young man about what happened.

If it did go down as he says, then I applaud him for not going all testosterone and shooting up the place.

Morgan, geeze you are the biggest moran there is. Yea teachers are going to be dropping guns all the time for kids to pick up. Are you a freaken idiot. Teachers having guns is a great idea and that might have saved lives. Someone in china killed a bunch of kids with a stick. Gun dont kill people, crazy people kill people.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security_guard_said_he_had_rob.html#incart_river_default#incart_m-rpt-2''

Oregonian (newspaper) confirms the account, quotes police. Who are keeping things close to their vest.

OK, again I'm not an American. But I have an opinion.
And the technology already exists to do this.
Let them keep the guns ... but...the bullets!

All bullets to be coded!
~ Ownership of Non coded bullets - LIFE Sentence.

Only Coded bullets can be sold.
~ Selling of Non coded bullets - LIFE Sentence.

When coded bullets are bought, the serial number of the gun, the coded bullets are to be fired from, must be declared.
~ Selling of coded bullets without proper declaration. - LIFE Sentence.

After bullets are fired the user must declare where the bullets were fired, and at what they were fired at.
~ Owner not declaring - up to 10 years custody.

Silencers illegal!
~ Ownership of silencer - LIFE Sentence.

Hidden weapons including shoulder and ankle holsters. illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Automatic Weapons. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Any modifications made to a firearm. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

NON USA manufactured weapons. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Mind you I can be a bit flexible on all this........just a starting point.

Fortunately my country does not let me own a firearm.

That's not what that plot says. That plot says: More guns, more people use guns to commit their murders. It says nothing about the total number of murders or violent crimes.

It would still look similar--lots of murders in the US compared to other places--but that's not what this one shows.

Contemporary commentary on the second amendment indicates that people at the time considered that it guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Our Supreme Court ruled that that is the correct interpretation.

I agree, guns are like a cancer. However, we are trying to cure cancer. It's difficult, but we are making great progress after great commitment. A lesson we can apply towards guns.

"Make cancer illegal" was kind of dumb, though. As far as not being able to get the poison out of the well... says you.

It's called an amendment because things change. And our Supreme Court may be the highest law in the land, but that doesn't mean they are infallible.

From what I read on this (very little, admittedly) they believed the 2nd Amendment describes an individual right, and not a right to arm as a part of a militia only, because the English Bill of Rights already recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right. What I don't get is why the smartest people in the country at that time, the Founders, would even mention state militias if they meant that portion of the Amendment to be completely ignored as if it were just errant babble. Scalia seems to be a constructionist when doing so serves his ideology.

Even if arming more people is the answer, and I think it's a ridiculous notion, how the hell are you going to get people who don't want to carry guns to carry guns? This whole "if everyone was armed" bullshit assumes most people would be willing to carry. The gun nuts in this country live in this imaginary world where they walk around protecting everybody like superheroes or something. I watch a lot of knife reviews and other knife videos on YT, and so many are done by gun nuts who feel a need to place their guns strategically or even blatantly within the shot while they talk about a knife. What is it with these idiots that they NEED to flash you their guns whenever possible? Are they just chest-thumping? Why do guns turn people into instant bad-asses? Is it an image sold by gun manufacturers, or TV, or rappers, or Quentin Tarantino? It just seems so mentally ill to me.

It's my belief (& please give the benefit of the doubt to somebody who lives in Britain here) that Pratt made one genuine point that "Moron" side-stepped very nicely, namely the fact that violent crime is much higher here than it is in America. (Example):- You don't see Americans getting drunk & then beating seven barrels of shite out of each other over a lousy football game, happens here all the time.

P.S........ Before anybody asks, yes I HAVE been to America a number of times.

*Climbs off soap-box.