Us Decides Against Tighter Gun Control

[ChillDoubt]

..in what President Obama calls "a shameful day for Washington".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22194183

You really do have to marvel at the utter stupidity of the Senate at times, you really do.

I appears the nation's obsession for guns will never be assuaged, when you know the next Columbine or Sandy House is just around the proverbial corner.

[craft1948]

I don't pretend to understand US politics but can see Obama was pretty upset on this subject. Why on earth would anyone vote against the proposed legislation?

[Canary42]

/// Why on earth would anyone vote against the proposed legislation? ///

"Market Forces", so beloved by the Reagan/Thatcher duo. Big Business as a result took over the world, and now has a stranglehold.

[emmie]

so Mrs T is in part responsible for the craziness of the Americans, i am pretty sure that would have surprised her.
In case you hadn't noticed it's their choice, it's written into the constitution, the right to bear arms, and it is no surprise that they aren't going to do anything about it. another shooting will happen, then another, it's been going on a long long time.
President Obama is fighting a losing war, and will not succeed in his term of office, i suspect that whoever is in power will have their work cut out to change the minds of the populace on this very sore subject.

The day after the shootings at Sandy Hook, reporters visited a gun shop, a massive place with thousands of weapons, the owner said that they had had their busiest day ever, how can you argue, or fight against that mentality, simple, you can't

[RATTER15]

They clearly see their right to bear arms far more important than the safety of the young and innocent that get gunned down in their school.

Americans tend to think they live in this amazing country, I would not live their or even visit the country.

[emmie]

i think it is an amazing country, and have visited, however i will never understand their obsession with owning guns, particularly the type that the last man used in those poor children.

[WELSHYORKIE]

How many more sickos have does it take before the Yank senators take their fingers out of their ar ses and put tighter controls in place - stop the nutters getting guns? No, sir, gunmakers give them millions to lobby to stop it getting through the house.

[RATTER15]

em, youre right, it is just the people that live there that put me off, too many nutters!

[emmie]

Ratter, strangely i didn't meet any, all those i did were kind, considerate and mostly normal... i have even dated a few, one was mad as a hatter, but that's another story.

[emmie]

The NRA is extremely powerful, and has enormous clout, you aren't going to stop this any day soon.

[jake-the-peg]

So how did this actually happen?

Obama's saying a majority of senators voted for it but 'by a distortion of senate rules' it failed

Anyone know what that means?

[coccinelle]

To get it through they needed 60%.

[coccinelle]

By the way, that rule was only passed a few weeks ago...

[sandyRoe]

As a nation they've decided that human sacrifice will continue. The blood of innocents will continue to be offered up to placate that dark god, the Second Amendment.

[coccinelle]

Not as a nation; 90% of americans are for back checks before buying a gun, for some strange reason these senators decided to go against the people they are representing...

[youngmafbog]

Mrs T had a big effect on the Us Economy. Wow, what a Lady!

The problem they have in the US is that

1) It is enshrined in the constitution so it takes a very brave (or stupid) person to try and change that.
2) Even if they did pass tighter controls, just how many guns to you think are out there?
3) America is a vast country, really think it can be policed? I can't see all the red necks giving up their guns without a fight - literally.

Once again we see people on here thinking that our way is best. but has it stopped the shooting here - no of course not. Criminals and nutters break the law, make a new one and the only people it affects are the ones who would not do anything anyway.

[coccinelle]

Nobody is asking anybody to give up their guns; they're just asking for background checks on all sales. Guns can be bought over the internet and in gun shows without these checks so guns can get into the wrong hands. How the heck a magazine gun can be considered 'protection' is beyond most people, it's a weapon to kill and its place is on the battlefield.

[jake-the-peg]

'wrong hands' is a bit suspect in this context, the US is so awash with guns it would take a generation for gun controls to be effective anyway.

Criminals and undesirables can easilly get hold of guns that are stolen or bought second hand so this was always going to be a fig leaf anyway

[jim360]

//the US is so awash with guns it would take a generation for gun controls to be effective anyway.//

Perhaps that's part of the problem, that such gun controls as have been brought in have been around for too short a time to make a difference, so the gun lobbies can jump on them as "proof" that controls have no effect.

Either way it seems difficult to have a debate about this with a country that seems to regard the idea of owning a deadly weapon as a right.

[coccinelle]

Criminals and undesirables can easilly get hold of guns that are stolen or bought second hand so this was always going to be a fig leaf anyway

When you buy a gun it's registered in your name and you are responsible for it so if that gun gets stolen you report it, or if you sell it you do a background check and the gun gets put into that person's name.

[coccinelle]

By the way, this is in a bill which didn't get passed... but does seem logical.