I've realised something about US gun control, and I'd like to share it....

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Actually, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution says a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms", not a "right of the people to keep and bear Guns".

So, by American law and reasoning, everyone must have atomic weapons. Then society will be safe.



It also says in the same paragraph of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, that this has to do with a "well regulated militia" but very few gun owners are members of a militia, well regulated or not.

So, again, America is not actually compliant to the letter of is Constitution.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Criminals still shoot people in the UK. Mostly with handguns.
I've shot pistols myself at a range in the past but managed not to harm anyone.

Plenty of rifle clubs around nowadays. No handguns but if you're not an idiot and you can fill in the paperwork and satisfy some safety issues then its fine.

I'm more likely to get stabbed to be honest.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Having guns are not the problem. Job security, poverty wages, meaningful work, healthcare security, and retirement security are much bigger problem in causing issues in American society. People are stressed out. People who are desperate will continue to "just snap" as a response to too much stress.

True and its only going to get orders of magnitude worse going forward, and all the while, the cops increasingly stand down because of the Fergson effect. And the Feds could attempt to collect all the firearms from law abiding citizens and there would still be millions in illegal circulation and confiscation would only create an unregulated black market in firearms.

I am truly puzzled by the Brits opposition to US firearms laws and am left to conclude it is sheer jealousy. My queston of the Brits is , if the US government confiscated all the legally owned firearms, and as crime rates soar afterward, would they then be happy as countless innocents are killed, beaten, raped and abducted at the hands of the enormous criminal element in the US?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Having guns are not the problem. Job security, poverty wages, meaningful work, healthcare security, and retirement security are much bigger problem in causing issues in American society. People are stressed out. People who are desperate will continue to "just snap" as a response to too much stress.

This⬆️
Gun crime in Canada has also been slowly getting worse, but there's also been much more strain on finances. There seems to be a definite correlation. Crime goes up when people are struggling to pay bills.

The people in the US like things the way they are, and are happy that things are not like they are in the UK. The people in the UK like things the way they are, and are happy things are not like they are in the US. Both are right about themselves and wrong about the other. I live in the UK, own firearms and am happy that we do not have mass private firearm ownership, and a routinely armed police force.

Shall we do the free healthcare at the point of delivery thing next? That would be equally futile.

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Criminals still shoot people in the UK.

hardly ever. not in the same universe, let alone ballpark, as the USA gun madness.

US history- unhappy Europeans risk their lives to sail to a new world far away. For many generations set up that new world . Then realize the old world wants a piece of the tax pie and comes to forcefully take it. The colonials get together and stop the old regime from taking unearned control and governance. This was accomplished because the colonials had firearms. They then formed a loose government with perfect laws to protect humans from tyranny again.

Gun owners remember their history books, be it the revolutionary war or ww2, and will not hand over our primary protection against tyranny.

Germany ww2, guns were confiscated prior to internment and murder.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Good luck with this one chief.

I applaud your efforts to tread where others fear to and I understand your reasons for doing so but I rather suspect that you are in for some trolling from some peeps!

For me its not an issue of "guns" vs "no guns". That's an issue that cannot be resolved because the arguments have been meticulously constructed on both sides of the debate (typically by those with an interest in maintaining the status quo) to completely undermine and negate the other side's position.

A better question to ask is "morally speaking, is it ever ok to kill a person?"

The difference between the UK and the US is that I think you will find that people in the UK are more likely to say "it is never ok to kill another person" whereas people in the US are more likely to answer "well it depends on the circumstances".

In the UK we have what is called the Private Defence or the Defence of Justification which basically means that a person may use reasonable force to protect himself, his property and others against unlawful force. The question of what constitutes "reasonable force" has been considered in a number of cases however in the 2002 case of R v Martin the jury concluded that the shooting of intruders was not "reasonable force" for the purposes of the defence.

I don't know for certain (as I do not have an in depth knowledge of the US legal system) but I rather suspect that a US jury may have been inclined to have determined the matter differently and may well have concluded that it was reasonable for the accused to have shot dead the intruders.

Ultimately, it is a far reaching moral decision. If you believe that it is never ok to kill things - then you do not need guns.

If you believe that it is ok to kill some people in some circumstances - then guns serve an important role in your society.

The problem that this brings, is that if you believe in the latter - then you will occasionally get nutjobs like Stephen Paddock coming along who are able to "rationalise" their decision to kill lots of innocent people.

If you want to live in a society where everyone is free to carry a gun, then there is a higher risk that you are going to get shot. If you do get shot, then that is in part a consequence of society's collective decision to allow people to carry firearms.

I think for the purposes of the debate - you need to re-frame the issue. I am neither pro-gun or anti-gun. I am however anti-killing.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly


Good afternoon, PA!

I respect your post and your opinion, and agree with your views here. There is no point in trying to change the firearm situation here, because owning said weapons is protected by the Constitution for reasons that are very important to many of us.

My own POV is that since guns can't be eliminated entirely, asking me to give mine up is akin to asking me to take the risk of being a victim of a violent crime when I haven't done anything wrong with said weaponry (I even own a short barreled machinegun - my weapons never hurt a fly). They aren't for hunting (for me) and are reserved entirely for defensive purposes (self defense, and defense of state).

I also have to ignore politicians who call for gun control, because they're near universally surrounded by armed security. If society is truly that safe, why do they need armed protection? Do they think they deserve safety more than the rest of us?

Either way, thanks for sharing your opinion and giving me the chance to share mine.

Cheers

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

The only actual point the right wing talking heads Have is the availability issue and the social ramifications surrounding them.

A) we have like a billion guns in country..so I guess it’s kinda fair to say everyone does have guns. So we are basically already that extreme.

B) the American people from niether potical bend would ever accept a ban and/or confiscation..

To the point that even mentioning it would be political suicide..

The number of deaths cause by the billion guns in circulation, wouldn’t even touch the full scale revolt and likely civil war that would come from a ban and confiscation.

At least not for a century or two If tallied. .

So any discussion about banning guns in America is what’s known as mental masterbation lol..

The population doesn’t want it, and neither does either political party.. contrary to what Sean hannity and all his “they are comming to get your guns propagandists might tell you..

Plus NONE of the military or law enforcement bodies would do it..

It is literally a none issue..


HOWEVER , since you feel like a little mental masterbation...

In some fictional universe where a geni wished away all the guns in America , would we be safer???

Almost certainly..

But ain’t no F’n genies lol...

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

The problem stems from several things:

1) Some people seem to think the US is and should be just like the UK and Australia - The fact is, the US is nothing like the UK or Ozzie land. Not just culture differences and origins differences, but even physical differences (we are not a island nation - we have two other countries that border ours).

2) Banning something does not make it go away here in the US - Both Prohibition and the War On Drugs have proven this over and over. Ban something here, and it will flow across our borders (we're not an island nation again).

3) Banning something does not magically make it go away - Banning guns has no effect here. Guns will still be here. Does not mater how many here on ATS seem to think that all guns will somehow magically disappear if the federal government were to removed the 2nd Amendment and ban all privately owned guns. The guns will still be here (hundreds of millions of them), and they will flow across the border.

4) More laws are not going to change anything. Yesterday's shooting is a prime example of that - the shooter was not allowed to legally own a firearm, and yet he was able to obtain one and kill people with it. Murder is also against the law, but that did not stop him. Too many people here seem to think that more laws will somehow magically stop mass shootings. It won't.

The United States of America is the United States of America. People need to stop demanding that it be the UK or Australia, or Norway, or Sweden, or any other country. It's not, nor will it ever be like them.

The US is a large country with a large population and a large amount of gun ownership. It's a fact of life. We have a very wide amount of demographics and various cultures right within our own boarders.

If you live in New Jersey (a physically small state as far as land area is considered), you have 1,218 people in on square mile. Yet in Wyoming it's only 6 people per square mile.....Alaska? 1 person per square mile.....and those are just numbers. There are places you can go where there is no one for many square miles.

We have tens of millions of people packed into huge mega cities.....but we also have millions of people (millions of them) living in very rural areas....and people living in areas that are not even rural, but are considered wilderness.

The main mindset of most Americans (and has been since this country got started) is that you can do what you want, be what you want, go where you want, say what you want, believe in what you want, and own what you want.....with out the damn government interfering with that. It's what the founding values of this country were.

Trying to dictate to us what we can or can not do, can or can not say, can or can not own is never, ever, going to fly.

I know many of you do not like the US bombing some country and trying to change their governments, right? (which I agree with, I don't think we should be doing that either).

But here you are trying to do the same thing in essence: dictate what laws we should have, what we should and should not be able to do, and what we can or can not own, in our own country.

Stop it. Stop the double standard. The US will never be the UK or any other country for that mater. What works in one place does not always work elsewhere.

It is a lot easier to police the UK than it is here in America. If you look at the Homicide rates on this page, en.wikipedia.org... you will see that there are variances in Homicides all over and guns are not really a determining factor in this. It is the corruption in society that effects homicide rates, people's lack of respect for other people. I know a guy from the UK personally, he said there are gun laws there and there are no pistols. There are still stabbings often, and many of those people do not die. So less deaths but just as much violence. Guns are tools, get rid of the bad people and then we will not need guns to protect ourselves from the armed criminals.

You do not need a gun to kill someone, but sometimes fancy weapons that look badass do make some people think they are big. I do not desire to have fancy military style weapons, most of my guns are inherited from my family. They have personal memories tied to them. The Guy I know from the UK, cornwell actually, enjoyed shooting my 357 desert eagle at a target and loved my huge truck. That is something they are not able to do there.

The two guys, one is dead now and the other is a facebook friend, that stayed with us also really liked my choice for breakfast, I made a couple pounds of bacon and a bunch of sausages and eggs and french toast with real syrup. My wife was irked at me for giving them this kind of food, they loved it, on their singing tour, everyone fed them healthfood where they stayed, I learned what a rash of bacon was from them, they were happy to get to eat the bacon and eggs for a change.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

True.

Handguns were stopped here years ago and I only ever used the club pistol. The rifle clubs just continued without them.

My point was that if they're out there, criminals will get them and since the ban its only criminals who have them. Early 90s club scene was hit quite badly in Manchester. They used to call it gunchester!

I understand the difference in scale and we never really has mass shooting events but the ban didn't stop the criminals.

a reply to: Inc_9x


It works a little differently here in the states. Our laws are codified state by state, but all allow for use of deadly force to counter illegal use of deadly force against you. They also permit use of non-deadly force to respond to non-deadly force. There are also some other laws, including castle doctrine and stand your ground laws which provide legal protections to those who take a life in self defense.

In my personal opinion, any time another person attempts to use force that is capable of causing "severe bodily harm or death" then taking their life is justified and acceptable. Otherwise, it is an illegal murder vs a justified homicide.

None of my weapons (including NFA registered machine gun/SBR) are used for hunting or plinking. I do train with them, frequently, but their only purpose in life is to stop a deadly attacker as quickly and effectively as possible.

We take our guns and related deaths over other countries that have overbearing fascist governments occasionally teetering on the verge of communism any day.

It is a fact that higher gun ownership leads to an *Overall lower rate of total crime*

it is also a fact that countries with super strict gun laws have less *gun related crime*

This is a big arguing point for both sides, always has been and always will be.

a reply to: JBurns

If we are using the construction shouldn’t it include all weaponry ???

The constitution makes no mention of fire arms and was almost certainly included artillery and cannon. Which even the old versions are now likely illegal..

As a disclaimer no one is going to ban guns, however I don’t find that a valid argument.

The constitution just says “arms” and militias..

It does not specify what kind of arms.

a reply to: chr0naut

t also says in the same paragraph of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, that this has to do with a "well regulated militia" but very few gun owners are members of a militia, well regulated or not.

Should probably bone up on what those terms meant at the time they were written, rather than trying to apply a 21st century definition to them.

The whole point of the second was to not give the government the ability to restrict firearms owning. So why would they draft an amendment that gives the government the ability to "regulate" the right to own a firearm?

a reply to: dothedew


So true. Some people would have you believe that gun related crime is somehow worse than other types, and this is simply not based in reality. All violence is equally heinous, regardless of which tool the killer selects to carry out their deadly intentions.

I would be willing to give my guns up just as soon as all these fearless leader politicians give up their protective details. Also, firearms for law enforcement/military have to go too. Otherwise, how can I be assured a criminal won't just steal one from those guys? See my point?

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Yes, we should include artillery and missiles - all of which can still be legally purchased in the United States with a modest fee to the BATFE for a tax stamp

All of these weapons are required for Citizens to ensure their government is in a perpetual state of stalemate.

A large number of my friends have firearms, (we are not in the USA). They collect, shoot targets and hunt. They all regularly complain about american gun culture and how they are worried about being associated with it.

I get that guns aren't just for hunting and target shooting, they are for protecting yourself and your family, but you have to admit that many advocates of americas gun culture are over the top with their enthusiasm, it makes everyone look terrifying to those who are unfamiliar with the issue