Elementary school shooting

So you're perfectly content to have a, for example, schizophrenic in legal possession of a fire arm are you? Well I assure you I wouldn't be!

Possession of offensive weapons, such as knives, in a public place is also a criminal offence in the UK. The fact that hunting seems from the outside to form part of the "macho" male bonding processes in parts of the US is neither here nor there.

"He", the assailant, cannot do the same level of damage, by that I mean cause the number of fatalities, in 5 minutes with a hunting knife that "he" could with a semi-automatic weapon. It's really as simple as that and therefore an irrelevance.

Edit: technically a hunting knife has a defined purpose if used in that way, a gun in no way has a harmless purpose. "You" possess them for self protection is the claim. Not from a deer in the wood but from each other.

If you feel you need a semi-automatic weapon to defend yourself in normal life, in my opinion either something is wrong with your life or the society you live in. Proliferating fire arms is not the way to solve that.

 

I don't see what this has to do with the second amendment or that of government abuse, or the potential for such. But anyway, I would like to touch upon slavery. History is interesting, and much can be learned.

For example, the entire Roman Empire was built by slaves, in fact, slave trade was a fundamental part of the Roman economy, 35-40% of the Roman population were slaves. Slavery was also in full works in Germania and Gaul too, though not as widespread and vital for the tribes economy.

 

Carrie is 100% correct!

 

It has to do with the fact that what once was normal doesn't necessarily means it is normal forever. Just because your constitution gave the right to own a gun as a precaution because you just finished your fight for independence against Great Britain doesn't mean it has to be "normal" now in 21st century. Once it was normal to have slaves, now it is not. Once it was normal to have voting rights only for white males, now it is not.

If you really think regulation doesn't solve anything, then please explain this :
England and Wales, 2009, 55 million citizens, 39 firearm victims
US, 2009, 300 million citizens, around 12000 firearm victims
In other words, a realistic number of firearm victims in US per year should be 3 digit numbers tops, not 5 digit numbers as it is now. Sure, the low numbers in England can't be because England has 6.2 guns per 100 citizens (versus 88.8 in US) and have complex background and mental checks before you can actually buy a gun, right ?

 

You feelings on hunting knives was a rhetorical question, as far as wounds go (unless we're talking about automatic or semi-automatic rifles) knife wounds tend to do more damage, be more life threatening, as well as more difficult to repair. The risks of the victim bleeding out is rather great.

The technical definition of various knifes, as based on their purpose, is rather irrelevant. A knife is first and foremost a knife. It can be used to shop vegetables, in which case it’s called a kitchen knife, or when doing carpentry, in which case it’s called a carpenter knife. You have survival knifes; sporting knives, fishing knives, you have a whole array of knives. Knives are very versatile. Just like firearms are, same principle here: you have hunting rifles, sporting rifles, sporting guns so on and so forth. All of which can be used as weapons, I might add.

However, this doesn't mean that they must be used as such for someone to either own one, or for motivating any purchase.

If you have no criminal record then there should be no issues.

 

The entire issue of knives is merely diversionary. Almost anything can be used as a weapon by someone if they choose to and have knowledge. Guns can kill more people in a shorter time than other hand weapons. Period. They do not require close physical contact. End of.

In my opinion anyone who supports gun ownership without rigorous examination of suitability of owner and reasoning behind the requirement - because I have the right not being one of them - is to a small degree culpable in these horrific events.

 

I made a point regarding knives, guns and rifles.

I never suggested knives wouldn't require close physical contact, or that guns couldn't be used to kill more people in a shorter amount of time than that of knives.

As for people who support the right to bear arms being culpable in these horrific shootings because they simply don't want to see the state impose psychological evaluations are emotional arguments that stems from fear and anxiety, and a dangerous one at that, one which I will not bother addressing at this time.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

Will do, but that's utter bo!!ox Condone a gun culture and you get gun violence

 

That's good.

Recognizing the dangers of having the state decide for you whether you are mentally ill or not is surely not bollox thou, as I've said before, inevitably it would lead to abuse.

 

You mean like the desire to bear firearms does not basically stem from fear and anxiety?

Edit: oh, and +1 for Carrie.

 

I love it when people say that a knife is a knife and that we should ban knifes if we are going to ban guns. Some types of knifes are already illegal, i can not go around with a hunting knife without reason and licence. It has other uses but FFS you can use a standard knife for those tasks.

As for calling a gun a tool... yes, i completely agree, there is the kitchen gun, the carpenter gun, the hammer gun, the blender gun, all of those varieties of guns that help you clean up the house and prepare delicious meals, but when they are in the hands of crazy people can kill or maim.

And since you have those lax laws on guns why wont you port them to car ownership?

 

I have a fire alarm and a fire extinguisher in our house. Now I didn't have the fire alarm installed and the fire extinguisher purchased out of a fear of fire. I did so because I felt it could be beneficial in case of a fire, as did my better half, she also liked that our insurance premium dropped a bit, albeit not by much. Naturally I hope that neither alarm nor fire extinguisher will ever see use.

I'm not suggesting there couldn't be people buying firearms for the sole reason of being afraid, but so what? The reasons for the purchase are theirs and theirs alone, and unless they have a criminal record they shouldn't be denied the right to purchase a firearm.

 

Really? I buy fire alarms because basically, I'm afraid of burning to death.

Firearms are tools like any other, but with the express design and purpose to kill, and that gives them a rather singular context of use. Now the state makes people sit proficiency exams to drive cars, fly planes and sail boats on public waterways. So why wouldn't we expect people to sit a proficiency exam when they want to wield a tool specifically designed for killing? And yes, I feel perfectly comfortable with such examination including a mental health assessment. After all, the mental health services do such assessments all the time and they are state institutions.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Bearing firearms should be a privilege, not a right. We don't live in feudal times anymore.

 

Should people in the US be allowed to buy any drugs that they want?

 

+1 many, many times.

 

Recognising the dangers of having the state decide for you whether you are mentally ill or not?

Firstly, that's paranoia if ever I heard it.

Secondly, isn't that exactly what they do when people are sectioned?
Or aren't Americans allowed to be declared mentally ill and sent by order to institutions? (Rhetorical question )

On the assumption that they can legally do so, are you seriously telling me you think it's okay for them to section people but not to stop those same people legally possessing a gun?

As to abusing the system, what's the worst they can do? Stop someone having a gun?

 

If the decision was fear based I can honestly say it must have been a subconscious decision. Because consciously I am no more afraid of being burned alive than I am of drowning when out on a boat or that of being hit by traffic when crossing the street.

Not saying you're wrong though, just saying that it sure as heck didn't go through my mind when I took the decision.

 

Perhaps that would be the governments point of view? I don't know.

 

Or simply that of a person who is neither paranoid nor gun crazy?

 

ooops double post