An outsiders questions on US gun control.

a reply to: dismanrc

Quelle surprise, you have a bigger dick than me.

Pathetic.

So you get 10 years in jail for carrying?

Yes, why is that such a problem for you?
Its the way we want it, it doesn't affect you, why are you bothered?

Sure that would stop the bank robbers from carry a gun, after all they don't want to break a law while breaking a law.

Actually it does.
Most criminals do NOT use guns.
Armed robbery carries a minimum of 15 years in jail.
Bank robberies are actually quite rare in the UK - I wonder why? - and those that do occur tend to be highly organised affairs.

Also the UK has been pacified for hundreds of years.

Your ignorance of UK history and society is appalling.

This historical control was the very reason that the 2nd was included in our Constitution.

It wasn't included it was added at a later date.

And you've never used it despite the increasingly dictatorial nature of your governments the American people have NEVER risen up against it, ever.
And please don't try and say its because you have an armed populace - bollocks - its a bit like taking a pea shooter to The Gunfight at The OK Corral.

I have no problem with US gun control laws - its your country do as you please, absolutely nothing to do with me but please stop trying to take the moral high ground, it really is embarrassing and the vast majority of people outside of the US just shake their heads in complete disbelief at your arrogance and ignorance when you try it.

You Americans are no more 'free' than any of us, whether that be British, Canadian, Australian, French or whatever.
And guess what, we are pretty much 'free' to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't have a negative impact or effect on anyone else.
Should we be more 'free'? - Too damn right should we.....same as 'you's', but that's not the issue here.

Over the years we have forgotten this an allowed the government to take more power then they were originally to have.

Exactly.
You've never done a single thing about your governments despite your postulations.

And for the record; your Founding Fathers took most of their inspiration from European thinkers and philosophers.
I admire their codification of such thoughts but the hallowed, sacrosanct adoration of The Constitution is truly baffling.

All the OP tried to do was seek to understand American law and attitudes - what exactly is wrong with that?
Yet so many have seen it as a reason to ridicule and demonise.

I really thought some of the primary functions of this site was to exchange ideas and seek to understand others.
Clearly that is not the case for many.

originally posted by: nonspecific
As to the figures you quoted the rankings are somewhat irrelavant if you look at the actual figures.

Total murders with firearms UK: 14

Total murders with firearms USA : 9,369.

This was never intended to be a comparison of the 2 nations but using the figures you gave was innacurate.

You seem to have answered your own question here. In your country, you have one gun death for every 4 million people, roughly. In my country, it's more like one gun death for every 34 thousand people. So, with those stats, why wouldn't I be packing heat everywhere I went. The wild wild west that is America is a verily dangerous place.

a reply to: nonspecific

I suppose you could invalidate concealed carry with a federal law, but its not going to work. Given that concealed carry is relatively new in most states, we know that its not the source of firearm-related crime and homicides. Its just going to create a false sense of security and those with ill-intent will carry regardless. They always have. The only thing its going to do is deny the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves as they wish.

You're also going to run into a major cultural roadblock. Geographically, the US is a much more rural society than the UK or much of western Europe. For tens of millions of people living outside of towns, the 'gun range' is actually the backyard or a field that they own, and in many states, including my own, its perfectly legal. And the real problem is that many in local law enforcement do it on their own land and are, therefore, sympathetic to their citizens' rights. So its effectively unenforceable.

If it works for you guys, that's great. But it won't work here.

originally posted by: BlackmoonJester

originally posted by: nonspecific
As to the figures you quoted the rankings are somewhat irrelavant if you look at the actual figures.

Total murders with firearms UK: 14

Total murders with firearms USA : 9,369.

This was never intended to be a comparison of the 2 nations but using the figures you gave was innacurate.

You seem to have answered your own question here. In your country, you have one gun death for every 4 million people, roughly. In my country, it's more like one gun death for every 34 thousand people. So, with those stats, why wouldn't I be packing heat everywhere I went. The wild wild west that is America is a verily dangerous place.

Is that not the ouroboros nature of the situation though?

You need to carry a gun to protect yourself from all of the people carrying guns?

Or is it that the US has severe problems and crime is just higher and the gun issue is not relavant?

a reply to: nonspecific

No. I need to carry a gun to protect myself from all the crazy people carrying guns. It's an important distinction.

originally posted by: BlackmoonJester
a reply to: nonspecific

No. I need to carry a gun to protect myself from all the crazy people carrying guns. It's an important distinction.

That was my point, without all those "crazy" people carrying guns your own need to carry would be removed.

Here in the UK a lot of people carry an umberella because it rains a lot, in Austraila less people feel the need to carry an umberealla because the chances of getting rained on are minimal.

originally posted by: nonspecific
That was my point, without all those "crazy" people carrying guns your own need to carry would be removed.

That would work, but so far, you've only disarmed the law-abiding citizens. You haven't disarmed those with criminal intent. Consider that even in the mid 1970s, at least a decade before the movement to relax the concealed carry laws began, we had about 20,000 homicides per year in this country...far higher than what it is today, both in total and in terms of homicide rate.

Unfortunately, the 'crazies' and the criminals aren't going to follow the law. They never have.

originally posted by: vor78
That would work, but so far, you've only disarmed the law-abiding citizens. You haven't disarmed those with criminal intent. Consider that even in the mid 1970s, at least a decade before the movement to relax the concealed carry laws began, we had about 20,000 homicides per year in this country...far higher than what it is today, both in total and in terms of homicide rate.

Unfortunately, the 'crazies' and the criminals aren't going to follow the law. They never have.

You're more eloquent than I. Thank you for that. I actually have lived in other countries, without the need for firearms, and it's a pretty good feeling. But, I really really like guns. Hehe.

My next door neighbors are a British couple, and I'm a retired military type all guns and war lifestyle. We got into a debate that guns are not needed and they are fact of that. When I asked them where are they going to go if SHTF and they said my house...end of debate.

a reply to: vor78

Personally I understand that it would be wrong to implement UK / European style gun control laws in the USA.
That horse bolted a long, long time ago.

Any move towards such a thing would cause absolute mayhem in the US.
But surely people recognise that SOMETHING has to change?
The level of gun crime and deaths is a blot on the whole of the USA.

I certainly don't have the answers and I suspect that the level of gun associated crime is a manifestation of a deeper malaise within its society.
And its those issues that need addressing.

My personal experiences of American people, and I recognise its a generalisation, is that they are great, caring and fun loving people.
And they have much to be proud of, I for one don't deny that.
And I certainly don't envy you for the role you play on the world stage - in fact I firmly believe that world would be a far worse place if it wasn't for your international presence. (That doesn't mean that I agree with everything, but....imagine for a minute how things would be if it wasn't for you).

But seriously, you need to get off your high horse, stop ridiculing other nations and their people and recognise that what's right for you isn't necessarily right for others.
That pompous and arrogant attitude only serves to further alienate you from the rest of the world.

You say we haven't 'disarmed those with criminal intent".
Well the reality is that the vast majority of criminals DO NOT carry armed weapons of any kind here in the UK.
That is an undeniable FACT.

Not as many people engage in gun sports or need guns for hunting etc - those that do can go through due process and obtain appropriate weapons providing they meet the correct criteria.

And we've found ways to remove tyrants before, we'll do it again if necessary.

The UK is not the USA.

I've yet to see the OP criticise anything or anyone, all he's done is ask questions and offer up observations etc - apparently some believe that's not to be encouraged here on ATS anymore.

a reply to: Freeborn

Take a deep breath, calm down and relax. I never said that the UK should copy US gun laws. In fact, I said in my prior post that if it works for you guys, that's great. I have no issue with that. Do whatever you want over there, it makes no difference to me.

Regarding that response to the OP, it was in reference his specific proposal for the US. It would disarm the law-abiding citizens, but the criminals aren't going to be affected by it. We know this, because violent crime was actually higher before the concealed carry laws were relaxed at the state level starting around the late 1980s.

a reply to: vor78

I am calm my friend.

On re-reading my post it does seem somewhat aggressive in nature and in particular towards you.
That wasn't my intention and I apologise if it seems like that.

I replied to you simply because you seemed slightly less emotional and more rational than many.

It just gets rather tedious and at times annoying when reading post after post from Americans trying to moralise to other nationalities etc.

The OP has received some pretty aggressive replies - I know, he's more than capable of sticking up for himself but I can't help myself at times coming to the defence of others.

ETA.

The 'you's' in my post were collective and directed at the US and its people in general and not at you specifically.
Apologies if it seemed a personal attack - I should know better.

a reply to: Freeborn

Not a problem. Although I do not believe his proposal would be effective and that it has a number of serious flaws, my intention was not to make it a personal attack.

screw this

sorry people in this thread who are normal this is not for you I am sorry you are put into the same basket

1.

Look at the statistics If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 30,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. The difference between them and us is not that Americans are more violent by nature. It is because they have strict gun control laws.

2. this is what your hard earned money pays for criminals with access to guns

The annual economic toll of the US gun violence epidemic is $229 billion (£154bn), or the equivalent of $700 for every American, according to a new investigation.

3. You know why no politician passes a gun control law? because it makes them popular and it gives them guaranteed pass securing they chair in government .. they don't give a crap about people

If no one had a gun, no one would need a gun for protection, and if no one needs a gun, no one will die.

4. goverment is not afraid of you .. if # hits the fan .. more guns = purge ..

someone needs to draw a line .. not for people who have a gun now .. forget that it's too late

my generation is messed up in the head .. they think they are cool waving a gun around .. they point it into someone's face or they own they laugh .. they think it's funny when haha I almost shot my best friend I thought it was an intruder .. the are psycho shooting sprees going on .. I read the story with Adam Lanza warning that's the new generation of young people for you .. we are getting more and more depressed and retarded .. just please at least consider what I said and I want a reply because those thoughts concern me they make me not want to have kids

Having a gun should be a privilege not a right

a reply to: Layaly

Having a gun should be a privilege not a right

You may be right.
But since arms are actually mentioned in the Constitution, it's kind of hard to look at it that way from a legal standpoint.

a reply to: Phage

If you wanted to be a literal genie you could restrict guns but not bear arms. Though I think the law does take intent into account as well.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Guns are restricted. No, firearms regulations have no provisions for intent.

Wait. That wasn't a bear (as in the animal) arms joke was it?

a reply to: Phage

Yes, yes it was. It's something I'd assume has been done to death, but I rarely if ever actually see it. That's why I mentioned being a "literal genie."

I was talking about the intent of the constitution, by the way, not the people buying guns.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I was talking about the intent of the constitution, by the way, not the people buying guns.

Ah. I don't really think the document has any intent other than that which is stated. I think The drafters of it may well have, but they are long gone. However they did specifically create the Supreme Court.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Sounds like they have the authority, under the Constitution, to decide if something is Constitutional or not. Like it or not.

a reply to: Phage

Then, strictly speaking, they would be able to rule "the right to bear arms" as not pertaining to weaponry, but literal bear arms?
There may be something else in there that would stop that, however.