Well, that is the biggest pile of self righteous, selfish crap I have ever heard, doesn't surprise me though as that seems to be the mindset of many pro-gun people. Well that's just fine isn't it, F**k the massacres of children and 1,000s of innocent people, F**k everyone else as long as you can have your guns, unbelievable. You obviously couldn't give a s**t about anyone else because no one in their right mind would be prepared to accept that cost, I won't say what I really think of you as I don't wish to be banned but added you to my ignore list as you got nothing to say that I want to hear. Incidentally, I know people that live in the US and they get real sick of people like you ranting about "the right to keep and bear arms" the people I know don't want a gun but feel they are pressured into owning one for the sole reason that they might need it to protect themselves from all the idiots that are running with guns, you don't give a s**t about your country or your fellow Americans, all you care about is yourself.
How the second amendment is interpreted is open for debate, one thing is certain though and that is it does not just say "the right to keep and bear arms" the exact wording is "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." In fact it wasn't until 2008 that the US courts decided on how the second amendment should be interpreted, yet still that is just an interpretation. Not all CCTV cameras are owned by the government, and where the hell did you get that the UK government requires chef knives to be blunted ? If you're happy to accept the odd innocent person getting shot, or the odd nutter going on a rampage then fine, but then why not legalise other lethal things like drugs ?
Asking the US to ban guns is like asking the Germans to put a reduced speed limit on the Autoban - just so politically unviable that it's not worth talking about. However finding ways for the Police to manage less fatalities without increasing their own would be a good thing.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't it just be an unfortunate combination of circumstances? Your assertion that a 12 year old is free from responsibility is debatable, but even if that were true, the cop is faced with an unpredictable target, waving a (replica) firearm about etc., at the point the kid ignores the instruction and reaches for it a split-second decision must be made. I can't help but feel, if things had been different and the cop had allowed the kid to draw the gun, and the gun was real, and the kid had gone on to shoot someone with it, you wouldn't be applauding the cop for standing by watching it happen. I really can't see how people who haven't been in these situations can make valid judgements. And as for the Bill of Rights - a 'right' is not some sacred absolute, it is a social construct that can be deconstructed/changed etc. just like anything else.
@ Jumeira_Johnnie: That's all cool, but if you decide to live with minimal government interference and the right to defend yourself with guns, then that's the society you will get: one that will resolve its friction and conflict at a very personal level, with guns if deemed necessary. That is not civilization; that is frontier mentality. That may work in small communities out in the sticks where people ultimately depend on each other for survival, so are motivated to work harder at maintaining good neighbourly relationships; in crowded individualistic society it's a recipe for chaos.
What was it the NRA said a while back ? ‘Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun’ Only in this case the good guy didn't know if the gun was real, or if the guy was good or bad, or should the good guy have waited until it was beyond doubt ?
First off, we are in Serious, so I'm assuming this is a debate; my positions stated are not entirely my own. As is often the case in BT, it was rather one sided with a bit of animosity directed towards the US. Par for the course here. I do own and carry guns when I can; we both like to shoot. But, let's be real here, I'm not a right wing crack pot. I live a rather balanced life and understand the rather complex nation that the US has evolved into. I'm very proud of it, dispite the many missteps it has taken to get where we are. So no need for y'all to freak out. Interesting point about frontier mentality, given our history. It has left a lasting and often hard to put into words slant on most of the nation. As for being a recipe for chaos; if it is, then we are cooking it wrong. What you are seeing in the UK, even in the media here, if often very skewed and focused. It's not the whole story nor is it everyone's story. It would be like taking the labor troubles and the Irish funtimes of the 80's and suggesting it was evenly spread about the UK. It wasn't. The VAST majority of people in the US are living normal, boring lives; unscarred by gun violence. It's not chaos. Traffic on the other hand, is. So let's not make it out to be 'murcan's shooting each other in the streets over hot dogs. Sadly, it's not. It's actually one of the largest political action groups after the AARP. Those are the old people, if you didn't know. It is open to debate. Just not open to people that aren't US citizens. And at the time of this country's founding, almost every Man was in a militia, hence the ruling removing that from the right. If every citizen is in a militia, then ever citizen has the right. Abstract court ruling, sure. But an important one. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Gay marriage, too. Most things actually, so long as people are capable of making the choices for themselves and take responsibility for them. I'm one of those.
You say that, but I note you didn't respond to my post which included actual figures showing that there are considerably more firearm-related deaths in the US than the UK. If you missed it, here are those figures again: US firearm-related deaths per capita (100,000 people) 10.3; UK firearm-related deaths per capita 0.25. That makes any given person more than 40 times more likely to die from a firearm in the US than the UK. That's a 4,000% increase in risk. That's statistically significant, no? Interested (genuinely, no sarcasm) in your thoughts here.
Sorry, there were was a lot of material to work with. 40 times, eh? I'm ok with that. I'm also 40 times happier with the weather and food. But that's not here nor there. How many times more likely was I when I lived in the GCC or in Southern Africa. Risk is something I'm comfortable with because it comes with some pretty fun things. Like freedom and rewards. If you like tightly regulated societies where you are limited, that's great. Singapore is a great place to raise kids (really, it's pretty awesome) but I'm not sure I could be happy there for more then a few years before it started to chafe. I was more in "danger" hiking in Yemen then most people would be willing to tolerate, but it's a cherished memory. As was so many things in my life. Risk is something I was raised with, and will continue to accept given how awesome it's been so far. The idea of removing those risks, removing the spirit of life that makes it worth living, that's......simply not what I want my life and this country to be. But if it's about accepting the freedom of speech, religion or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, it's ok? I'm not self righteous, I just believe we have something special in our constitution. You may not like it, and that's fine. But it's there and it's the reason the other 9 rights will alway be there. Where is your horror for the children dying of hunger world wide? A much larger and more easily solved problem, yet your aghast that I'm ok with car accidents as a consequence of driving a car? Please, human life isn't all that valuable. Get out and travel a bit. wow. you argue a point and the other guy doesn't even take the 30 min to look up a decade of posts here to see who I really am, nice. you really should have taken the 30 minutes. you really should have.
Arrested development? There's these statistics though.... And I question whether gun ownership is tantamount to freedom. I always though that personal freedom was a state of mind --the acceptance of risk means you don't feel the need to carry a gun-- and that societal freedom is safeguarded by an active engagement of the voting public into what goes on in their society. I'm nor seeing that in the US; your political campaigns are truly dreadful and if they reflect the basis on which most American voters choose their politicians, then no guns are going to help them. But guns offer a nice, false sense of power, control and security. It's a transitional object for the masses (right up there with the Bible).
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that, but I have a problem with it. See, those risks you've stated - hiking in the Yemen, living in Southern Africa - you made by choice. The 40-times-more-likely-to-be-fatally-shot risk? That's an increase for everyone living in the US, regardless of whether or not they chose to live there. Born in the US? 40 times more likely to get shot. No choice around that, it's just how it is. It seems to me - and correct me if I'm wrong here, text is always open to interpretation and I apologise if my interpretation is awry - that you're happy for everyone else to have a 40 times greater chance of being shot dead so that you can own a gun without needing to go through a background check or apply for a licence. That right? You mentioned cars earlier in the thread as a bigger killer than guns, didn't you. Now, last I checked cars were licensed in the US just like in the UK. To drive a car, a US citizen must demonstrate basic mastery of its controls and a basic understanding of its safe use under practical test conditions, and pay for a licence that proves said mastery and understanding (as well as paying to prove ownership of their vehicle, and paying to insure against accidents that could injure a third party or result in third-party property damage). Are you in favour of this licensing? If so, why are you against gun licensing - demonstrating basic master of its controls and a basic understanding of its safe use under practical test conditions, potentially with third-party insurance to boot and, like cars, with the understanding that abuse will result in having said licence revoked? If not, why do you feel passionately that the 'freedom' to own a gun no questions asked is worth defending, but not the 'freedom' to drive a car no questions asked? (Oh, and to correct a few misunderstandings you appear to have about the UK: you can own rifles and shotguns (but not handguns, which were banned in the 90s) by paying a nominal annual fee for a licence, undergoing a criminal background check and demonstrating that you have a police-approved gun safe installed for its storage; our chefs' knives are as sharp as yours, as are our steak knives, table knives and any other knife you care to name (although we do have laws about carrying certain knives around in public without due cause, and bans on 'gravity knives' and balisongs); the government runs very little CCTV, with the majority being run by private companies protecting their own property (Marks and Spencers, for example, controls the CCTV cameras in Marks and Spencers stores, and the government doesn't get a look-in without a warrant.))
Lol no way an untrained group of civilians could stand up to one of the most funded and practiced militaries in the world. If there was an uprising it would be annihilated swiftly. This idea is one of the great American delusions.
And 80% of them are made up....or something along those lines. You could just as easily look at them and determine we have a violence problem that stems from other, underlying issues. Lasting racial and class disparities, social distance and alienation, 11 years of siege mentality (more, I suppose, counting the cold war) and and and.... The statistic that know one looks at is the guns per capita starting from the turn of the last century as it relates to violence. I'm pretty sure the number of guns per person hasn't grown radically, yet the reported gun violence has. So was it the guns, or the change in society? And is it worth changing the founding documents that solidified one of the longest running modern republics?
No it's not. One of the worlds most funded and practices militaries spent 10 years against people living in caves and gained nothing. 10+ years against the 5 largest military in the world and gained nothing. Given that 20-25% of the US military wouldn't attack the citizens, and no army has ever held against an unwilling population, it's a given fact that an armed citizenry would stand. We beat the largest, most well funded and practiced military in the world with farmers to found this nation, or did you forget that?
I can assure you, the firearm deaths per capita figures are legitimate - and from official sources. I hate to go back to Pikiwedia, but would you care to guess the company that headlines number of guns per capita? That's right! The US! And your assertion that 'the number of guns per person hasn't grown radically' is also, I'm sad to say, mistaken: 'Per capita ownership of firearms in the US has doubled since 1968,' this CSM article states. Doubled. I'd say that's pretty radical growth, really.
If your asking me if I am sacrificing other's rights to secure mine, then no. You would be wrong. We, as a society, have accepted the risks. As much as I like to proclaim it in the shower, I'm not actually dictator. Yet. But show me the waves of emigrants who want to surrender their US passports for 40 times more safety. Because I'm sure there are waves of immigrants that are (often literally) dying to take on those 40 times of reckless gunfights that burst out daily across the land. And this is a valid argument, which is why we do have background checks of various levels in different states. And varying levels of licensing. We had to demonstrate basic marksmanship to receive our concealed carry permits in Kentucky and Georgia, as well as here in California should I decide to pursue it. At the same time, in the US, on my privately owned land, I don't need a drivers license nor insurance to drive a car...on my land. Once on public roads, it's a differing story. Plenty of kids growing up on farms were driving combines before they were able to drive in public. In my home, on my land, I can carry a long or side arm as I like. Once in public, where my rights butt up to yours, things change. I know. generalisations breed generalisations. I have spent more time in the UK and EU then most of you have spent here.
What, you existed entirely on Pot Noodles and takeaways while you lived in the UK? 'Cos I'm a writer, not a chef, and I run out of fingers counting the number of different chefs' knives (all sharp) I have in the kitchen right now.
