Guns Everywhere
Discussion
P-Jay said:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowdrop_Petition this was probably the largest of the post Dunblaine petitions, but there were others, I believe total signatures came to around 2m people in total, admittedly it's likely that the same people signed more than one of the petitions.
I agree it's very likely.Even if all signatures are unique, though, I don't think that 2 million out of 65 million is a majority.
rohrl said:
AshVX220 said:
Indeed, in this country we seem to struggle with the term "Guns don't kill people".
Maybe because it's so simplistic."Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people, but you can't shoot someone unless you have a gun so it's more correct to say that people with guns shoot people" isn't quite as catchy.
Blib said:
I see no point in legally held handguns in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a gun club and shoot a hand gun at a target? Pointless.
I see no point in legally held cars which can do more than 70mph in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a race track and drive at high speed? Pointless.Another persons view.
ajl.
AshVX220 said:
rohrl said:
AshVX220 said:
Indeed, in this country we seem to struggle with the term "Guns don't kill people".
Maybe because it's so simplistic."Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people, but you can't shoot someone unless you have a gun so it's more correct to say that people with guns shoot people" isn't quite as catchy.
There are cases of people going apes
t with a knife or running people over in a car but it's a damned sight harder to kill a bunch of people with a bladed weapon than it is a gun. To stab someone you've got to get right up next to them then physically attack them which is a much bigger deal than simply pulling a trigger.The fact is that when you hear of a massacre in a school, shopping centre or workplace the chances are it happened in the US and it was done with a gun.
Yes, but the point is, it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the crewed squishy bit, holding the gun. I don't believe there should be "stricter" gun controls, I don't like the anti-gun rhetoric and controls in the UK. I do however believe there should be much better gun control with more stringent and regular checks.
rohrl said:
Yes and no.
There are cases of people going apest with a knife or running people over in a car but it's a damned sight harder to kill a bunch of people with a bladed weapon than it is a gun. To stab someone you've got to get right up next to them then physically attack them which is a much bigger deal than simply pulling a trigger.
The fact is that when you hear of a massacre in a school, shopping centre or workplace the chances are it happened in the US and it was done with a gun.
People who do this sort of thing seek to do it in the most sensational way possible. Today that is with a gun. It isn't because they are 'gun nuts', it's because they seek recognition and because certain sections of the media have a hard-on for gun related atrocities. If you shoot the place up you'll be remembered in a big way.There are cases of people going apes
t with a knife or running people over in a car but it's a damned sight harder to kill a bunch of people with a bladed weapon than it is a gun. To stab someone you've got to get right up next to them then physically attack them which is a much bigger deal than simply pulling a trigger.The fact is that when you hear of a massacre in a school, shopping centre or workplace the chances are it happened in the US and it was done with a gun.
If killing lots of people is your sole criteria then there are far better ways than with a firearm. There is a list somewhere (Wikipedia, probably) of mass killings and the ones committed with firearms are way, way down the list. Fire is by far and away the method by which the largest mass killings have been carried out.
In fact, the largest shool massacre in US history was carried out with explosives, not with a firearm. Bath Michigan, in 1922 or thereabouts.
ajl.
AJL308 said:
Blib said:
I see no point in legally held handguns in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a gun club and shoot a hand gun at a target? Pointless.
I see no point in legally held cars which can do more than 70mph in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a race track and drive at high speed? Pointless.Another persons view.
ajl.
longblackcoat said:
I was working at one of our offices in North Carolina and was somewhat bemused to see a sign stating that the management would appreciate it if all guns were worn visibly when in the office, giving the distinct impression that being armed to go to work was a pretty run of the mill thing, but that having it tucked in your pocket rather than worn on your hip was pushing it a bit.
Sure enough, there were several guns to be seen in the office, unsurprisingly worn by white men in their 50s who looked to be about as much fun as having a tooth extracted without anaesthetic.
So its ok as long as you can see which co worker is going to go postal Sure enough, there were several guns to be seen in the office, unsurprisingly worn by white men in their 50s who looked to be about as much fun as having a tooth extracted without anaesthetic.
AJL308 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FourWheelDrift said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The right to bare arms doesn't specify what kind of "arms". They've drawn the line at fully automatic guns, mortars and field-artillery. So why not just limit the arms to something that stays in the constitution but makes it considerably harder to commit mass murder. Such as, everyone is allowed to bring a pike to Church? Or broad-swords are acceptable to carry on public transport. Trebuchets must be visible at all time?
As for the right to "bare arms", it gets very warm in many parts of the USA, and anyone can wear a capped sleeved T shirt.
The RTKBA exists so that the people can, if they wish, form a militia but being part of one is not a pre-requisite to exercising the right. The right exists as a counter to an oppresive regieme subjugating the populous (like the one they'd just kicked out did....us!) and denying them the rest of their constitutional rights.
In that context it is plainly obvious that the Second amendment relates to the possession of the military type arms. You could not operate a 'militia' otherwise.
ajl.
For rifles and shotguns I think British law is about right, when I got my shotgun certificate the police do a background check and came out to interview me (about 45mins) they check with your doctor, you have to have security for the gun(s) and if you do something wrong (get in a fight or something) you will have them taken from you. I'm sure if you knew dodgy enough people it would be easier and faster to get an illegal gun.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I believe the 2nd amendment was specifically to allow for the individual to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia, and not just as a stand alone individual.
The two are inseperable though. A militia is, by definition, a collection of 'stand alone' individuals who are acting in their capacity as private citizens. A militia - by its very definition - need not be a permanent, standing organisation, and may be formed and disbanded (with varying degrees of formality or greyness) as the need is felt by those concerned.If it isn't an individual right then it couldn't exist as a collective right because there would be no right for anyone not currently part of a militia to possess arms. Besides, it would require the state to establish what the legal definition of 'militia' was and it could choose to put the bar impossibly high and, hence, claim that no one was a member of a recognised militia so no one had a right to possess arms defeating the entire purpose of the right. The state would be very hard pushed to claim that no one was an individual, however.
The Amendment says that a 'well regulated militia' is 'necessary' to a free state, no where does it say that continuous membership of such by the individual is a requirement of exercising the right.
ajl.
caine100 said:
AJL308 said:
Blib said:
I see no point in legally held handguns in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a gun club and shoot a hand gun at a target? Pointless.
I see no point in legally held cars which can do more than 70mph in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a race track and drive at high speed? Pointless.Another persons view.
ajl.
P-Jay said:
And fear is a correct response to the thought of someone having a device that allows them to kill another person from a distance with total ease. I wouldn't want to live in a county where people routinely went about their day with broadsword around their belt, let alone a handgun.
My crossbow will do more damage than most firearms. Yet perfectly legal to own.Really don't understand the issues in the UK with regards to guns, but I've lived in places where they are legal.
AJL308 said:
Blib said:
I see no point in legally held handguns in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a gun club and shoot a hand gun at a target? Pointless.
I see no point in legally held cars which can do more than 70mph in a modern, 21st Century society. So, you want to go to a race track and drive at high speed? Pointless.Another persons view.
ajl.
I think in principle the certification system in the UK is OK, although it could be much faster! The bans on semi autos and pistols were nothing but political knee jerk reactions to events that happened due to police corruption or incompetence as others have said.
We too have a right to bear arms in self defence, one that cannot be overridden - but it has certainly been eroded!
We too have a right to bear arms in self defence, one that cannot be overridden - but it has certainly been eroded!
P-Jay said:
Frankly without hundreds of years of arguing, the whole right to bare arms thing is laughable, it's up there with laws that allow Welshmen to be shot within city walls, at night, but only with a crossbow.
I don't see why the government should ban people from wearing short sleeved shirts. 
As for the American "right to bear arms"... well that was taken (like several others) from our own Bill of Rights 1689. It's not something they invented in 1776; As colonists they had these rights already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
It was something that applied here until the early 20th century when fears about anarchists, social disorder and Communism following WW1 made the authorities restrict gun ownership more and more. In other words, to protect their own arses.
The American Gun culture is part of the whole rugged individualism thing the USA has had since the beginning.
people have individual responsibility for their lives and their actions. Owning a gun is a right not a privilege, and folks need to be responsible enough to deal with gun use.
If you start banning guns, you are on a slippery slope to ending up as a socialist country with a nanny state.
Cold Dead Hand is a god given right.
To a point they are right, if you want a society based on individual responsibility then you have to accept the consequences.
If every one takes care of themselves you do not need a national health care system, or to provide benefits to all, etc etc, and you devolve power to the individual some will handle it better than others.
The right to bear arms is a sign of responsible citizenship. Some folks will be killed because other folks do not handle that citizenship correctly. That is no reason to ban guns. more folks die on the roads but no one talks about banning cars.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff