Sadly, you'll still have your guns for some time to come. Anyway, this subject was discussed not so long ago, but from my point of view it's good to see it on the agenda again and again.
Actually... I've never owned a gun. I just think that the freedom to own one is more important than the security infered by their being outlawed.
I don't have a problem with people owning guns, the problem I have is that people aren't preventing guns from coming into contact with people who should not have them.
The argument being: If you ban ordinary people from having guns, that doesn't stop criminals from having them. Doesn't it? Let's look at the scientific evidence: Kinda makes sense. A real gun enthusiast or game hunter will be prepared to pay top dollar for a quality weapon. Most opportunistic crooks or people just out to kill somebody will be much less prepared to pay high prices for a tool they will probably want to dispose of ASAP after the crime. There is no legal economic need for a cheap, disposable gun, so why sell them? In any case this research makes a clear link between legal gun sales and gun crime.
Yes, I know, I saw it the last time you posted that No arguement there, but the problem historically has been how you go about it. The so-called "assault weapons ban" of the 90's made guns illegal to import or sell based solely on how they look. I don't remember all the specifics, but a gun was considered an "assault weapon" if it had a folding stock, or a magazine capicity greater than 10 rounds or any of several other basically meaningless attributes. Of course, guns and parts made before the "ban" were still legal and traded at a premium during the time the law was in effect. I don't think there was ever a time you couldn't pick up the phone and order any of the "banned" parts from a catalog and it was completly legal since they were made "pre-ban". Unfortunatly, like so many things in this country, one's position on gun control tends to take on a religious fervor and there is realtively little room for logic on either side of the debate. I would also like the re-iterate somthing someone said in the last thread relating to this topic. I don't think this is as much a gun issue as it is an American issue. Unfortunatly, in the end it may be easier to ban guns than to get Americans to quit behaving like total F***wits
Most people can't handle serious responsibility or sensible independent thought. That is why we have laws and rules to limit their freedom of action and movement. How you go about it, is as the article suggests: ban cheap and fast weapons. That's it. That's all. Just stop selling guns cheaper than $400,-- and automatic machine guns that dispense more than one bullet per trigger-pull, because there is no reasonable legal need for those. It's no rocket science. It is applied here in the UK, in Holland, Germany, most of Europe, in fact, and generally, it works.
Amen to that! People can't be trusted with a lot of things, drugs, bombs, total power etc. And i think guns are one of them.
You've missed his point there I think. He's not saying that people shouldn't have guns, he's saying that americans screw around with guns and that that is the main problem here.
If I could be convinced that it would stop there, I'd fully support that course of action. Automatic weapons are already essentially* banned here, so it would be just a matter of banning the cheap weapons, and basically just cheap handguns. It is possible to purchase small, single shot .22 rifles for under $100 here, but I don't think that those are used it too many crimes. While banning cheap handguns would reduce gun related crime, especially in cities, it would not end it. Many crimes, especially crimes of passion, are comitted with the household hunting or home defense weapon which is often anyhing but cheap. My understanding is that none of the weapons used in the recent school shootings would fall within our "cheap" category. I guess my point is that I would be willing to support measures to reduce gun violence that did not meaningfully impinge on the right to bear arms. * I say essentially because it is possible for someone to legally own an automatic weapon or machine gun, but they are very tightly regulated and I'm not aware of a legally owned and registered automatic weapon being used in a crime. You're partially right, but by presenting it as a blanket statement I can't agree. Most people can be trusted with drugs, almost all of us have them around the house. Some people can be trusted with bombs, they're called soldiers and demolition experts and miners. Total power is a harder one, I might tend to agree with you on that one. In many parts of the world most people own or have access to guns and for the most part they use them responsibly. Indeed, most Americans who own guns do so responsibly, but a large enough percentage don't that we're having a debate about it. I think the reasons it's different here are manifold and intertwined. One is that guns are redially available, but few people are properly taught to use them. There are firearms safety classes available here for example, but you have to work at it a bit to find one, they are not free, and they are not required to purchase a weapon. You do have to complete a hunter safety class to get a hunting license, but since not everyone hunts, that has limited impact. Another reason I see is our isolation as a socirty from the results of violence. We see acts of agression and violence daily on TV, but never their real-world consequences. Consider thant the vast majority of Americans have never and will never see a real dead body. Death has become almost a fictional expierience in the American psyche anymore. Finally, sex and violence have become inextriciably intertwined in the minds of the American public. When it comes to media you almost cannot talk about one without the other coming up in the conversation soon thereafter. How many times have you seen it in the Prime Time movie; in the end the good guy shoots the bad guy and gets the girl. COnversely, in some cultures within the US the bad guy shoots the rival gang member or the cop anf gets the girl, but the message is the same. Kill your opponenet and the women will throw themselves at you. In other words, there is no black and white on this, or really any other issue in the real world.
Yeah i know he's pro gun ownership, but i was using the quote as i agreed with it, people are stupid and they're never going to stop being stupid so instead we pass laws to prevent them from doing stupid things.
Yes, but you're still missing my fundamental point. I don't believe in passing laws to protect people from their own or other's stupidity. For me it comes down to simple maths which can be expressed as Freedom > safety Passing more laws might make us safer, but it will definatly reduce our freedoms. In my mind that safety is without a doubt illusory. We are never safe, never have been safe and never will be safe. S*** happens, life is full of risks, many of which we have no control over, and everyone dies in the end. I think it is better to have the freedom to go out and do as you please so long as you don't harm others than to possibly be protected from harm. I don't believe in passing laws to protect people from their own stupidity.
But those are a very small proportion of gun crime. Having a swimming pool in your back garden is statistically more dangerous. And that's your problem, right there. Everyone favours solutions alright, as long as they don't have to make any personal sacrifices.
Well why not ban laws altogether, after all, I should be free to come to you and beat you round the head with a bat. I should be free to come to your house and take your stuff. But is it right? No. Why not? Because of Morals.
By that logic Cthippo why would anyone who isnt a criminal need a gun? I mean as you say sh*t happens deal with it, the fact you own a gun doesnt make you safe, it only makes you FEEL safe.
I think we do pass laws to protect from other peoples stupidity and with good reason. Drink driving is one. Its not just illegal to crash while drunk, but illegal to drive drunk at all. Therefore we are protecting people against the possbility of harm, as obviously you can drive home perfectly well whilst over the limit, but its less likely. So Cthippo, do you agree with the comparison?
hell, why stop there? its why they licence drivers in the first place. "Ok your safe enough to go on the roads" In the UK, you are only allowed a licence to own guns (pretty much shotguns only now) after the police have inspected your home to ensure the guns will be stored correctly, unloaded, in a locked safe (not quite but close enough). Some reasearch indicated Illinois have it right.
I recall a conversation I had a while back with a guy from Alabama who came to uni here about what the Constitution actually says with regards to gun ownership being slightly different from what perception of it actually is these days - that the right of a citizen to bear arms is somehow linked to being part of an organized state militia. Having never read the relavent part of the constitution myself though (I'm not an American myself though I have family there) I'm intrigued as to your views on this, and whether or not my friend was talking crap and/or I got the wrong idea from what he said! He suggested that greater restrictions on gun ownership could be implemented such so it'd bring us closer to the constitutions original idea of gun owners being 'organized' (and thus, presumably, under greater supervision from their peers and thus be obliged to act and use/store/handle their guns in a more responsible way, and those who refused would not be permitted to have a gun), hereby helping the gun crime problem without actually being unconstitutional? But he said that the idea of gun ownership being in the constitution has somehow been so embedded in the American psyche so that any attempt to increase restrictions is immediately portrayed a case of federal government acting as the bad guy, rather than merely an attempt to curb the free for all situation at the moment which means needless loss of life.
In other words people have a right to bear arms to protect their security of their freedom (in other words, if US Gov decided to go into martial law unconstitutionally, the people have a right to weapons to organize and go against said unconstitutional government) Not every idiot and their mom can have a gun
