Guest Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 Just for fun, time to start a new gun control thread. It's fun to pick the truly free citizens from the serf's. Am I biased or what? LOL Here's an articel for all you gun control serfs to think on. Gun Controls twisted outcome Written by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior adviser to the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in May by Harvard University Press. Here's a piece of it, for those who are not willing or able to wade through the entire article. quote: On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article’s battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes." In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice. None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America’s Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons. The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world’s gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England’s low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled." In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States. The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them. snip Now that was the beginning of the article, it is VERY long, but WELL worth the read. Those of you with open minds will take the time to read the entire article, those without open minds? Not a lot I can do about that. This is done by a person who is actually pretty neutral on the subject, that is why I am putting up this article. Let the debate begin!!
Kalshion Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 This might not mean anything to this topic.. but maybe it does Guns don't kill people, its the person who fires it. A gun doesn't shot someone, only the person who fires it. Although I agree with having a gun as protection still...
Charles Lindsey Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
Guest Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 quote: Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. LOL, I will take that as a sarcastic remark. My gun has NEVER killed anyone, me on the other hand.... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool, it can be used defensively, to protect oneself, or criminally, as a tool to commit a crime. Fact of the matter is, 99.99% of guns were NOT used in a crime last year. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Fewer guns, more crime, more guns, LESS crime. It's a statistically proven fact. Logically, gun control makes NO sense, but emotionally, it FEELS so good. Too bad it hurts more then it helps. Emotionalism is like that. That's why cool facts and logic are what I go by.
Epsilon 5 Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 I'm up to the point where It's not worth arguing with either side, since neither will change their opinion. So go ahead, flame each other, I wonder what's the point
Raven Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 Well, if we are going to be flinging around old sayings: "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people" That aside, I liked the article, and for a change I actually read the entire bloody thing (and Jag's right, it's dreadful long) and it's more then a little scary. I knew that England had fairly comprehensive gun control, but I had no clue that they restricted self defense so completely. I can tell you one country I'm never going to move to. And I agree in entirety with Jaguar's comment about emotionalism and logic. Emotion is fun, and at times it's just great, but not for deciding important policy. That's not called emotion, its called lunacy. I think the danger with gun control is not that it makes no logical sense, but rather that if examined superficially it appears to make perfect sense while still appealing to emotionalism. As for EP5, well, I can't really blame you, some individuals seam to flame everyone who disagrees with them in these debates. I hope it's not on my account that you don't want to post, I may tease you a little about being Canadian, but I don't mean that in a serious sense. Also, I know that I, for one, have had my opinion swayed more then a little by all of our arguments.
Starfighter08 Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: My gun has NEVER killed anyone, me on the other hand.... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool, it can be used defensively, to protect oneself, or criminally, as a tool to commit a crime.A gun not only supports in killing people, it is also an enabler. Unless of course you're one of the guys who can kill with bare hands. quote: Fact of the matter is, 99.99% of guns were NOT used in a crime last year. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Fewer guns, more crime, more guns, LESS crime. It's a statistically proven fact.Most of the guns which end up in a crime started "their career" as legally sold weapons and were later on sold to dubious people or stolen. On top of that even legally sold doesn't mean much, since AFAIK the requirements to get a license are easily met. Now if you have all guns registered you increase the chances that you can track back a gun used in a crime. If you make requirements stricter to legally own a gun and crack down on illegal gun possession you certainly reduce the influx of new guns into the crime scene. That means if you outlaw guns, criminals will have fewer guns too. Btw not only criminals have guns, the police has them too. If criminals have fewer guns, then the police has an edge over them. There are several ways to get killed by a gun. Children find their parents gun and play with it and get killed, or they kill others. People hurt themselfs with their guns or get killed by a frightened criminal once he realizes that his victim is armed etc. To check if the "more guns, less crime" slogan really holds true, it would be interesting to know how many crimes were commited with guns and how many crimes were prevented because of guns. That way you might guess the effect on crime resulting from an increase/decrease of the amount of guns in circulation. If there are more crimes commited with guns than there are prevented ones, society would probably profit from having less guns around. That's because I think that taking guns out of circulation should not only affect law abiding citizens but criminals too. If the gov't can afford to put pot smokers into jail and call that "war on drugs" then why not chase illegal gun owners too? Anyway, to really decrease crime, I think that the citizens who own guns should be well trained in using them to preven accidents. And also know who to act if the need arises. My uneducated guess would be, that most gun owners aren't trained well or even not at all. Until a few of these questions are adressed I don't think that facts or logic support the "more guns, less crime hypothesis". quote: Logically, gun control makes NO sense, but emotionally, it FEELS so good. Too bad it hurts more then it helps. Emotionalism is like that. That's why cool facts and logic are what I go by.Once a person made up his mind, he interprets all other things in a way that they support his point. Even if the number and importance of the cases who contradict his stance are significant, he underestimates them, refuses to recognize them or he makes up differentiations to disregard those cases who contradict him and keeps the others. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Raven Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 quote: A gun not only supports in killing people, it is also an enabler. Unless of course you're one of the guys who can kill with bare hands. Or knives, or lengths of rebar, or a few hundred other things. You don't need a gun to kill someone, and you certainly don't need a gun to commit an armed robbery, but if some crazy wants to rape and murder me I'd rather have a weapon with a bit of range. quote: Now if you have all guns registered you increase the chances that you can track back a gun used in a crime. A nice thought, but it doesn't help the poor bloke who's getting murdered with it. quote: If you make requirements stricter to legally own a gun and crack down on illegal gun possession you certainly reduce the influx of new guns into the crime scene. That means if you outlaw guns, criminals will have fewer guns too. Well, first of all criminals don't need guns to commit crimes; they just need to pick on people who are unarmed and obviously weaker then themselves and have a knife or some similar instrument. Similarly, those criminals who do have guns can act much more freely, knowing that they will face unarmed victims who will be relatively helpless. Besides, there will always be illegal sources for guns, and if nothing else it's possible to make a crude gun with any halfway decent metal shop. quote: Btw not only criminals have guns, the police has them too. If criminals have fewer guns, then the police has an edge over them. Which is all fine and dandy for the police, but most criminals don't commit crimes with police officers nearby. It's all great for the cops to have an even greater advantage over criminals, but it doesn't help there victims any. quote: There are several ways to get killed by a gun. Children find their parents gun and play with it and get killed, or they kill others. People hurt themselfs with their guns or get killed by a frightened criminal once he realizes that his victim is armed etc. Well, as for the first point, that kind of thing is extremely rare, and while it looks nice on the headlines, it doesn't much compare to the number of deaths that are prevented by the simply threat that someone might have a gun. Besides, that kind of thing isn't exclusive to guns, my father came close to getting killed when playing with an old sword of his uncles when he was a little kid, are you suggesting we outlaw that kind of thing as well? As for people hurting themselves, this too is extremely rare (I'm sure Jag could quite some statistics so I'll leave that to him), and frightened criminals, well, sure, that kind of thing happens, but how many more times do criminals kill, or rob, or rape there victims because they don't have a gun to defend themselves with. quote: That's because I think that taking guns out of circulation should not only affect law abiding citizens but criminals too. If the gov't can afford to put pot smokers into jail and call that "war on drugs" then why not chase illegal gun owners too? They do darling, but one of the nifty things about criminals is that they spend quite a bit of effort not getting caught, and it's not like there is any way to spot someone with an illegal weapon unless they are being inanely obvious about it. quote: Anyway, to really decrease crime, I think that the citizens who own guns should be well trained in using them to preven accidents. And also know who to act if the need arises. I concur, but this should be the responsibility of the gun owner, not the government. quote: Until a few of these questions are adressed I don't think that facts or logic support the "more guns, less crime hypothesis". Darling, your argument, like all others I have ever heard for gun control, sounds nice, and makes some sense, but the problem is that it doesn't work. Jaguar has given us a number of sources at various points that point out the increase in crime that corresponds with gun control, as well as evidence suggesting that most criminals are at least cautious of potential gun owners. On the other hand, I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that shows that gun control works; rather I hear again and again how gun control should would. It doesn't matter if it should work, it quite plainly doesn't work, and that's what matters. Besides, at least in the US, it's unconstitutional, something which a lot of people like to forget about.
Epsilon 5 Posted November 21, 2002 Report Posted November 21, 2002 it's not really about the flaming part, it's about arguing with someone you KNOW will NOT change their opinion.
Guest $iLk Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 We are kind of ideologically set in stone. There are going to always be those who accept the harsh realities of 'real life', and those who whine. I'm sitting this one out, but if you want my guns I'll give them to you - bullets first.
Guest Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 FYI: The Mirror is a classic example of a British Tabloid newspaper, more interested in sensationalism (and celebrities) than real news, so anything they say should be taken with a pinch of salt
Guest Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: FYI: The Mirror is a classic example of a British Tabloid newspaper, more interested in sensationalism (and celebrities) than real news, so anything they say should be taken with a pinch of salt Where did this come from? I do not see a thing out of the mirror on this thread, and I would NEVER post from that, it's like the national enquirer or something? So again, where did that comment originate from?
Epsilon 5 Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: quote: FYI: The Mirror is a classic example of a British Tabloid newspaper, more interested in sensationalism (and celebrities) than real news, so anything they say should be taken with a pinch of salt Where did this come from? I do not see a thing out of the mirror on this thread, and I would NEVER post from that, it's like the national enquirer or something? So again, where did that comment originate from? quote: The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the articleÔÇÖs battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."
Guest Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 Thanks, EP, I really spaced there, didn't I. Long days at the office will do that.
Menchise Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: quote:Anyway, to really decrease crime, I think that the citizens who own guns should be well trained in using them to preven accidents. And also know who to act if the need arises.I concur, but this should be the responsibility of the gun owner, not the government.Replace the word "gun" with the word "car", and think again. I'm not familiar with the requirements for getting a weapon permit in the US, but I think one of the requirements should be - at the very least - a basic understanding of firearm safety. [ 11-21-2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
d8alus Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: Replace the word "gun" with the word "car", and think again. I'm not familiar with the requirements for getting a weapon permit in the US, but I think one of the requirements should be - at the very least - a basic understanding of firearm safety I completely agree. Why is it that driving privledges involve a written test and supervisory evalution and gun ownership involves paying money at a courthouse? Note that I am completely against gun control in its current incarnation. I have four years of infantry training and I'll die before I give up my right to defend myself and my loved ones. On the same token, I have tried repeatedly to convince my brother's girlfriend not to get a gun. Owning a gun for protection is great, provided that you've been given basic knowledge and confidence in it's use. My dad was a policeman for almost a decade and he has repeatedly told me of murder cases he worked where the victim was either killed with their own gun or killed because they were too scared to actually use it. (not being sexist but 'they' was usually 'she') My only point on gun control is proper respect for the weapon. That means that no matter what a weapon is always considered loaded, and if you point it at an aggressor you'd better be ready to fire. Guns should never be used as an empty threat. If the aggressor thinks you don't have the will to use it, he will call your bluff. Now, if you'll excuse me, I believe it's someone else's turn on the soapbox... [ 11-21-2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Kiran ]
d8alus Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 A friend of mine said this and I thought it's funny.... quote: My idea of gun control is redundant safeties and a hair trigger
Raven Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: Replace the word "gun" with the word "car", and think again. I'm not familiar with the requirements for getting a weapon permit in the US, but I think one of the requirements should be - at the very least - a basic understanding of firearm safety. Hogwash, there are so very few accidents with guns it makes your comparison worthless. I mean, what's next? Licensing people to have electricity in there homes because there brat of a two year old might stick paperclips in the power socket and win himself a Darwin award? Unless someone is a complete idiot they treat a gun with at least some respect and keep it away from there kids, and no amount of licensing will keep idiots safe. Oh, I agree that people who own guns do need to know about how to use them and, perhaps more importantly, how not to use them, but if someone wants to remove themselves from the gene pool then who am I to prevent them.
d8alus Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: if someone wants to remove themselves from the gene pool then who am I to prevent them. What if that someone was your child? Death, well-deserved or otherwise, is not something to be callous about. Everyone that dies is a father or brother or mother or sister or child to someone. Just because you don't know them and it doesn't affect your life doesn't mean it doesn't affect anyone. Just food for thought.
Charles Lindsey Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote:LOL, I will take that as a sarcastic remark.What I get for not using a smilie. Was trying to be funny. I guess it was sarcastic at that. quote: I concur, but this should be the responsibility of the gun owner, not the government.Ummm, after wanting people to take an exam to vote? I could advocate a required safety course. Hey Kiran, I just noticed your from down my way as well. Cool.
Raven Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: What if that someone was your child? Impossible, it's about as likely to find a yeti dancing in Hawaii as for me to have children. More likely really, after all yetis theoretically could exist. quote: Death, well-deserved or otherwise, is not something to be callous about. Everyone that dies is a father or brother or mother or sister or child to someone. Just because you don't know them and it doesn't affect your life doesn't mean it doesn't affect anyone. I disagree; death is always something to be callous about, especially when no one you know or like is involved. quote: Ummm, after wanting people to take an exam to vote? I could advocate a required safety course. Nonsense, voting affects everyone, but gun ownership should be a private issue. Besides, there are very few gun related accidents; it would be just as logical to require exams to be able to use household appliances.
Starfighter08 Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Or knives, or lengths of rebar, or a few hundred other things. You don't need a gun to kill someone, and you certainly don't need a gun to commit an armed robbery, but if some crazy wants to rape and murder me I'd rather have a weapon with a bit of range.Range is exactly the point. And the fact that you don't need a lot of training or strenght to hurt or kill people. That's why I think that guns have to be considered in a different category. The comparison with knives is a wrong analogy (especially if we speak about kitchen knives who's prime function is not to kill/hurt people). quote: A nice thought, but it doesn't help the poor bloke who's getting murdered with it.Let's use some backward induction. Having guns registered helps to find the perpetrator of a crime. Knowing that the propability to get caught is higher, a potential criminal will at least think twice before killing somebody. Result: it helps the poor bloke by decreasing the probaility to get killed at all. quote: Well, first of all criminals don't need guns to commit crimes; they just need to pick on people who are unarmed and obviously weaker then themselves and have a knife or some similar instrument.What about self defense courses? Of course people cannot be bothered to get training even if they live in dangerous areas. Wouldn't you agree that it can help against a ciminal with a knive or a similar weapon? quote: Similarly, those criminals who do have guns can act much more freely, knowing that they will face unarmed victims who will be relatively helpless. Besides, there will always be illegal sources for guns, and if nothing else it's possible to make a crude gun with any halfway decent metal shop.Reading this shows clearly that it would be much harder to get a gun. That means that less people will have some. quote: Which is all fine and dandy for the police, but most criminals don't commit crimes with police officers nearby. It's all great for the cops to have an even greater advantage over criminals, but it doesn't help there victims any.See backward induction as shown above. quote: Well, as for the first point, that kind of thing is extremely rare, and while it looks nice on the headlines, it doesn't much compare to the number of deaths that are prevented by the simply threat that someone might have a gun.As soon as a criminal knows you have a gun, it becomes a me or you situation. The risk of getting killed is now significantly higher. You better know how to use a gun and actually do use it otherwise you're dead meat. quote: Besides, that kind of thing isn't exclusive to guns, my father came close to getting killed when playing with an old sword of his uncles when he was a little kid, are you suggesting we outlaw that kind of thing as well? As for people hurting themselves, this too is extremely rare (I'm sure Jag could quite some statistics so I'll leave that to him), and frightened criminals, well, sure, that kind of thing happens, but how many more times do criminals kill, or rob, or rape there victims because they don't have a gun to defend themselves with.I'm quite sure the number of criminals who kill even if the person is unarmed is smaller than the number of criminals who kill once they know that the victim is armed but I don't have stat. to prove this. We could compare the numbers for people killed with that of people who are "just" robbed. That could give a hint. quote: They do darling, but one of the nifty things about criminals is that they spend quite a bit of effort not getting caught, and it's not like there is any way to spot someone with an illegal weapon unless they are being inanely obvious about it.Is there a way a cop can spot if somebody is armed? It's only one step from there to check if the weapon is legally owned. quote: I concur, but this should be the responsibility of the gun owner, not the government.To legally drive a car you have to pass tests. To adopt a child the gov't checks you out. You even wanted to indroduce tests for people to vote. But guns who are designed and intended to kill others you want to let the owners care about training without control? That's a somewhat inconsistent stance IMO. quote: Darling, your argument, like all others I have ever heard for gun control, sounds nice, and makes some sense, but the problem is that it doesn't work. Jaguar has given us a number of sources at various points that point out the increase in crime that corresponds with gun control, as well as evidence suggesting that most criminals are at least cautious of potential gun owners. On the other hand, I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that shows that gun control works; rather I hear again and again how gun control should would. It doesn't matter if it should work, it quite plainly doesn't work, and that's what matters.It seems that you use the word "darling" for strangers you don't agree with quite often. Do you try to belittle me or are you just a very kind and openhearted person? You haven't seen gun control work because it hasn't been introduced/enforced thoroughly yet. Saying that you don't know if it works but being against trying is not a tenable stance, especially if you're even against hypothetically speaking/inquiring about the effects of gun control. quote: Besides, at least in the US, it's unconstitutional, something which a lot of people like to forget about.The discussion is not about gun control being constitutional or not. It's about the question if it should be constitutional or not. Since a majority of congress can amend the constitution, the discussion is not completely moot. I'd also like to add that gun control doesn't mean that nobody should have arms. At least not for me. Being a Swiss militaryman (like half the male population of this country) I have my assault rifle and ammo right here at home and I think that free people should be allowed to own guns. It's just that the restrictions should be tighter IMO, especially if peole without military training can get guns easily.
Raven Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: Range is exactly the point. And the fact that you don't need a lot of training or strenght to hurt or kill people. That's why I think that guns have to be considered in a different category. The comparison with knives is a wrong analogy (especially if we speak about kitchen knives who's prime function is not to kill/hurt people). Yes, but criminals can manage just fine without guns, or if they can't black market guns will always be available, but I would probably mess up my hands terribly trying to defend myself with a length of rebar (assuming one was at hand, I certainly don't carry one around). quote: Let's use some backward induction. Having guns registered helps to find the perpetrator of a crime. Knowing that the propability to get caught is higher, a potential criminal will at least think twice before killing somebody. Result: it helps the poor bloke by decreasing the probaility to get killed at all. Yea, but most criminals think that they can't get caught, that it won't happen to them, otherwise they wouldn't commit crimes, so it's not much of a deterrent. Not nearly so much as the possibility that the victim might pull a gun on them. quote: What about self defense courses? Of course people cannot be bothered to get training even if they live in dangerous areas. Wouldn't you agree that it can help against a ciminal with a knive or a similar weapon? Self defense courses take a lot of time and require a lot of work; it's no great surprise that most people don't take them. quote: As soon as a criminal knows you have a gun, it becomes a me or you situation. The risk of getting killed is now significantly higher. You better know how to use a gun and actually do use it otherwise you're dead meat. Well, I was more referring to the threat that a person might have a gun; once they do pull it it's another matter entirely. quote: I'm quite sure the number of criminals who kill even if the person is unarmed is smaller than the number of criminals who kill once they know that the victim is armed but I don't have stat. to prove this. We could compare the numbers for people killed with that of people who are "just" robbed. That could give a hint. Sure thing darling, but I guess people who are going to get guns should know about that eh? If someone gets a gun and gets killed because of its then its there own faulty. No amount of training courses will save a bloody fool from himself. quote: Is there a way a cop can spot if somebody is armed? It's only one step from there to check if the weapon is legally owned. And so how do they spot the weapon? If they notice it under cloth or some such that's getting very close to illegal search and seizure. Furthermore, how long does it take to check on something like this? I certainly know that I wouldn't want to be detained by some police officer and have to sit around for an hour or so while they search some hideously long database to see if such and such weapon is on it. quote: To legally drive a car you have to pass tests. To adopt a child the gov't checks you out. You even wanted to indroduce tests for people to vote. But guns who are designed and intended to kill others you want to let the owners care about training without control? That's a somewhat inconsistent stance IMO. There are innumerable numbers of accidents driving cars, and voting is a major issue that affects us all in a big way (I don't really care about the adoption point so I shan't address it). Guns, on the other hand, very rarely result in accidental deaths and thus arenÔÇÖt in need of any special exam. quote: It seems that you use the word "darling" for strangers you don't agree with quite often. Do you try to belittle me or are you just a very kind and openhearted person? A kind and openhearted person? Heavens no, but I'm not being insulting either, it's just an expression that I use. And I don't exclusively call people I disagree with darling, it just seams that way as the amount of text I address to people I disagree with is some 50 times greater then the amount I direct towards people I do agree with. quote: You haven't seen gun control work because it hasn't been introduced/enforced thoroughly yet. Saying that you don't know if it works but being against trying is not a tenable stance, especially if you're even against hypothetically speaking/inquiring about the effects of gun control. What about that catastrophe going on in England? But that aside, just about every instance of gun control leads to an increase in violent crimes, it's a disturbing trend even if gun control hasn't been done right (what that means exactly I'll leave up to you). quote: The discussion is not about gun control being constitutional or not. It's about the question if it should be constitutional or not. Since a majority of congress can amend the constitution, the discussion is not completely moot. Yea, but we already have gun control and congress hasn't amended it, which is seriously disturbing. Rather, they argue that the second amendment is somehow invalid because of the exact wording, its complete nonsense, but they get away with it anyhow.
Guest Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 quote: The discussion is not about gun control being constitutional or not. It's about the question if it should be constitutional or not. Since a majority of congress can amend the constitution, the discussion is not completely moot. Since you are from Switzerland, I will forgive this obvious lack of knowledge. Congress CANNOT amend the constitution, they can send an amendment to the states to be voted on and if a majority of the states agree with it, then it can be added. Fact is, that an amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment would crash and burn so hard that it is insane, and EVERY congressman that voted for it would be in danger of getting voted out the next election. All Gun owners and groups would aim their sites and money at getting those congressman defeated, and removed from office. Besides the fact that it would cause a revolution against the federal government like they have never seen. 80 million gun owners is nothing to sneeze at, and 250 million guns is nothing to sneeze at either. The government will not try to get rid of the 2nd amendment, it would be political suicide. That is why they are trying to judiciate, legislate, and sue gun manufacturers and gun owners rights out of existence without directly going after the amendment itself. We have 20,000 gun laws inthis country, and the cities with the HIGHEST crimerates are those with the tightest gun restrictions. When the SCOTUS(Supreme Court of the United States) finally gets a 2nd amendment case, expect most if not ALL gun laws to be kicked out. This will throw the liberals and socialists into a tizzy, and hopefully they will flee the country. Maybe they'll flee to Switzerland, or Europe. You can have them.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now