The most ridiculous article ever published by the Guardian?

[IanDavis]

Firstly, the Guardian has clearly published articles which are far more ridiculous than this.
Secondly, is this a 'real article'? Author "Paul Watson is a journalist and author of the book Up Pohnpei, published by Profile Books", and has no other articles published in the paper. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixui2hT7wpg

[AustinElliott]

Just to show that Comment is Free is

(i) not a forum exclusively for us Guardianistas; and
(ii) can be, errm, reliably relied upon to publish craziness

- here is an article to rival the N Korea one in "WTF..?"-ness (though the view it espouses is quite common on the US right):

Only law-abiding armed citizens can prevent more Auroras

[John McKenna]

What Chuck Heston should have said was not, "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands...", but, "I'll give you my gun when you take it with your cold, dead hands." I.e. never.

[IanDavis]

A quick look through that author's profile reveals the phrases "Tea Party" and "Fox News". After that, you can see why the article is a mixture of buzz words, catchphrases, and nonsense.

[Roger de Coverly]

The right to bear arms is part of the American constitution. But much of the constitution was derived from English Common Law as perceived in 1775. So there's the question, was the right to bear arms ever part of English law and if so, when was it removed?

The pro gun lobby isn't an issue in the UK, it being presumed that the potential advantage of being able to shoot a nutter is outweighed by the prevention of nutters having access to firearms.

[John McKenna]

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution (1791) states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(A modern legal interpretation extends the right to individuals not in the militia.)
All Swiss males undergo military training and are required to keep weapons at home as army reservists so their country has one of the highest gun possession rates but lowest crime rates in the world.

[John McKenna]

The English Bill of Rights 1689 - upon which the American is partly based - restored the right of Protestants to keep and bear arms after a period of unrest started by the Civil Wars but gave Parliament (not the Monarch) the right to regulate arms.
After more than 200 years the first serious regulations were passed in the Pistols Act of 1903. Thus, in theory, the right to keep and bear arms may still exist in law but it's heavily regulated, so if everyone applied for a license how many would be granted?

[Paul McKeown]

- here is an article to rival the N Korea one in "WTF..?"-ness (though the view it espouses is quite common on the US right):

Only law-abiding armed citizens can prevent more Auroras

Worse, I have read somewhere that some foaming gun nut has gone so far as to say the cinema's management should be sued for forbidding customers to bear arms on their property.

Dozens of mass murders in the US since Columbine, but the political will to deal with the problem at a Federal level is now almost non-existent. Mitt Romney attempted some degree of sensible gun regulation as state governor, but as a relatively liberal Republican candidate is terrified of prospective red voters choosing to back some extreme right wing fruitcake candidate should he speak out an issue such as this. As for Barack Obama, he is handicapped enough by his skin colour in US politics and has trouble enough defending his healthcare reforms. Perhaps he might try to do something as a lame duck, but he will, in any case, keep his gob firmly shut until he has won his second term.

As for the UK's gun laws, I doubt the police would refuse a firearms license to most Brits should they apply for one. In England and Wales 7% of private citizens have a legally held firearm, in Scotland about 6% and in Northern Ireland 22%. However it would be impossible for private citizen in the UK to legally hold an assault rifle or a handgun (except in Northern Ireland), which apparently were the weapons which caused death in Aurora. Anyone who applied would have some degree of background check applied, would have to be an adult of sound mind without serious criminal conviction. Their weapons and ammunition purchases would be recorded and could only take place via a licensed dealer, the guns would be required to have safety locks and to be kept safely separate from the ammunition, and would not be allowed to be modified, theft or loss would need to be reported, etc. The thought of even such elementary controls such as that reduce the NRA's sociopaths to hysterics. Even accepting the American view that a citizen should be allowed to own firearms to defend themselves (the nearest police might be fifty miles away), what rational purpose does a citizen owning a semi or fully automatic assault rifle fulfil?

There is a cultural problem, though, in America. Violence is ingrained. Homicide rates are much much higher than in other developed, politically stable countries with high levels of gun ownership. Changing a culture is probably a lot more difficult than enacting common sense firearms regulation.

As regards British gun law, a few things that I find slightly surprising are that ballistic fingerprinting is not required of firearms, nor is the tagging of ammunition required. Both would aid weapon identification in those (admittedly few) instances in which a legally held weapon is used in a homicide. Neither would be particularly onerous impositions on owners, nor particularly expensive to administer. I also find it a little odd that firearms licensing does not require any degree of technical or safety competence to be tested and certified. The mere act of asking how a firearm should safely be loaded under what circumstances it could safely be discharged should in itself help weed out quite a few nutters. I don't think insurance is required of owners, either, which again seems a curious omission. Whether or not governments should respond to the bleatings of competition marksmen that they cannot own specialised competition handguns isn't something that greatly bothers me, although I tend to think that the law should get out of the way in allowing people to do stuff which doesn't harm others. I suppose if it were ever to come to it, it wouldn't particularly bother me if single shot competition handguns were permitted, but I would suggest that the shells should be kept at nominated police stations only to be withdrawn at a fortnight's notification at the absolute discretion of the police in specified quantities for use at a specified licensed location and that all shells should be returned within 24 hours, whether spent or not.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The right to bear arms is part of the American constitution. But much of the constitution was derived from English Common Law as perceived in 1775. So there's the question, was the right to bear arms ever part of English law and if so, when was it removed?

...

We are very simple in the UK. Anything is OK until Parliament passes a law forbidding it. So anyone could carry firearms until they were banned at some point in the twentieth century (1968 or earlier?) unless the owner had a licence. Further restrictions followed the Dunblane massacre.

But the Americans had to have a constutition, and since they had just won independence, I imagine (because I am no historian) I imagine that it seemed sensible to enshrine their rights to bear arms, so that they would always be ready to fight future oppressors. So until the constitution is amended there is not much that can be done to control the likes of Sarah Palin, sorry, I mean the nutters.

[Louise Sinclair]

Is it assumed that all gun owners are complete nutters but non firearms enthusiasts are sane upstanding sane citizens?

[Ian Kingston]

Is it assumed that all gun owners are complete nutters but non firearms enthusiasts are sane upstanding sane citizens?

Neither. But the nutters with guns are somewhat more dangerous than those without.

[Louise Sinclair]

All the lunatics I have met are not exactly safe without guns. However there are many responsible gun users. The gun is not the danger - any weapon in the wrong hands can be lethal - how many deaths by taser?

[Ian Kingston]

All the lunatics I have met are not exactly safe without guns. However there are many responsible gun users. The gun is not the danger - any weapon in the wrong hands can be lethal - how many deaths by taser?

I'll quote myself:

nutters with guns are somewhat more dangerous than those without

(emphasis added)

I'll note that no one has yet walked into a school or a cinema and killed multiple people with a taser.

The gun control issue is much more complex than either side likes to pretend.

[Louise Sinclair]

I would note that the majority of killings are carried out with weapons which are not guns.

[David Robertson]

I would note that the majority of killings are carried out with weapons which are not guns

'Carried out' where? This statement is true only for the UK where, of course, access to guns is strictly controlled. So, in 2011-12, there were 550 murders in the UK, of which only 39 were by fire arms.

For America, the statement is nonsense. Over a similar period (latest 2009-10), there were 13,756 murders in the US, of which 9,203 were by fire arms. The annual rate for gun-related murder in the US fluctuates between 67-70% of all murders over the past two decades.