Virginia Tech massacre

I agree with everything you said but that in bold. If that were true, the United States would not exist.

Our armed population far exceeds the size of our military. That being said, while a large portion of our military would most certainly desert any effort to oppress American civilians, you would still have die-hard soldiers who will never disobey. Sure it is doubtful we can stand up to the sophisticated weaponry our military posseses, but I for one would feel alot safer with the knowledge that at least had the option to try to defend my community. You must understand that the second amendment is largely symbolic, our constitution has already been chipped away at for the past century, the more you chip away at something, the more likely it is to completely crumble.

I vehemently disagree, nothing is more dire to the American people right now than protecting what little rights we have left.

Glad you agree with that, however I believe culture is at the root of this violence, not firearms.

 

You will never understand how much that right has helped you until it is taken away........

 

when a guy attempted to mug my friend.

and he didn't ahve any money on him either, so his ass woulda got shot

 

I think Air was using the national we, rather than the pluralised personal pronoun....

 

I think this quote is telling - the right to bear arms as a means of avoiding oppressive government is largely a symbolic fiction these days. Coup d'etats don't happen unless a large part of the military and establishment is on the side of the coup. It's entirely unrealistic to think that armed citizens of the USA could overthrow the US government unless the military itself was on the side of the coup - at which point, an armed citizenry is something of an irrelevance (as I think Peace already pointed out).

So this argument that the right to bear arms is essential to the freedom of the US citizen is simply not true. And as we have seen throughout the last century, if a government wants to take away your freedoms they have far better and subtler ways of doing it from within the democratic process without the people noticing or caring. Gun ownership being an essential part of freedom is a fiction.

 

what if he goes on to become some great influence in American life?

bet you didn't consider that

 

Perhaps you should take my entire post into context rather than basing your entire position off of one statement.

 

The whole event was shocking. I must admit I cried when I saw it on the news. One of the guys who got shot was a holocaust surviver, aged 76. He died defending his pupils.

It's just unbelievable, and it makes me realise just how little my problems mean. I would like to offer my condolences to their families and friends, and say R.I.P to the casualties.

 

I agree. There are tens of thousands of deaths from guns each year in the USA, and a handful in the UK. The whole point of a gun is to kill, whatever people may say. It's like saying that we should have a right to rape.

Ban the ghastly things right away.

 

What gives you the right to say this? You don't even understand the second amendment, and why it is important to Americans........why don't you take up a worthy cause where your opinion might matter..like getting rid of the CCTV littered throughout your country....or any number of other socio-political causes that affect your own domestic affairs.

 

Quite clearly the fact I quoted a part rather than all of your post does not entail that my comments were based solely on that part. If I have misunderstood you - that your opinion is that the citizens of the USA have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves against oppressive government - then please correct me, otherwise your comment is rather churlish and irrelevant...

 

I feel sorry for you, your only looking at the negative side of things........giving up firearms gives complete and total control to oppressors, you don't see that?

 

I think you're right, the right to bear arms is repeated like a mantra by those in favour of guns, but it's largely a sophistry. The situation in the 18th century is so different from today that there's really no workable comparison you can draw, the idea of the people taking on the government with their weapons is so absurd as to be laughable, and when you have the levels of gun crime there are in the States, obviously the right to bear arms has become a hindrance to personal freedom and no longer serves any meaningful purpose.

 

Okay....forget the government oppression factor, what about Mr. Lowlife Meth/Crack head who wants to car jack me and rape my girlfriend. Are you saying I should let him and/or call the police who I guess you are saying should be allowed to carry and wait for them to help me.

You can advocate becoming a victim all you want my English friends...but as for me, I will use my concealed carry .45 caliber and shoot the bastard in the leg (if he is threating my life/family and I can not readily flee). Its a cruel world out there and I intend to be a part of the solution rather than the problem in my personal and public lives and the things I undertake for change, but until we start to see some of that change I will not abandon my own means to defend myself.

I HAVE close to ZERO faith in the law enforcement community at this point, and unlike some, I don't contract out my own self preservation.

 

Freedom of speech gives me the right to say that. Or haven't you heard of it in America?

And if guns aren't made to kill, then pray what are they supposed to do?

Why the fuck would I campaign against CCTV? What a dumb thing to say. Knives are a problem in England, but nothing like guns are in America. How many deaths is it each year in America from handguns alone? 27,000? How many in England from knives? Not even one hundred, I'd bet.

 

Yeah, I bet that you and your girlfirend get attacked all the time. Stay in your house if you're scared. And do you know that you are more likely to kill a family member than a threatening person?

Guns kill people. End of story.

 

This is an utterly flawed argument / implication. Guns were already very strictly controlled prior to the 1997 ban on handguns, and Britain has / had a relatively low murder rate before this limited ban on one type of weapon - which was already strictly licensed - just as it has continued to have a low murder rate since. The 1997 ban was in response to a high profile handgun killing spree that happened in 1996, not in response to a general gun crime problem, and it was designed to stop such - already exceedingly rare - cases of concealed weapons incidents.

I have a feeling the high murder rate blip that happened around 2001/2002 was actually due to the GP serial killer Harold Shipman. Your suggestion is an utterly disingenuous and incredibly ill-informed one!

 

You can't really do this; we've had strict gun licensing laws for nearly 100 years, guns were restricted long before gun crime ever became a problem, it's not as simple as demonstrating that a gun ban reduced the murder rate over any given period since we never had a gun crime problem to begin with. The case with the USA is totally different. The attempt to make simplistic points about the efficacity of restrictive gun licensing as a crime reduction measure by means of murder rate figures indicates that you don't understand the UK situation as regards gun culture - basically we don't have one, perhaps because gun ownership was severely restricted following WWI. What you can say is that severely restricted access to guns in the UK has probably played a part in stopping Britain from ever developing a significant gun culture and the consequent absence of gun crimes and low murder rate.

That's a completely different point, it perhaps was an overreaction since handguns were subject to the same strict licensing restrictions then as rifles and shotguns are now and consequently handgun crime was very rare. But removing this type of weapon (the type that can be concealed) was a preventive measure which has significantly reduced the likelihood of these types of crimes happening, even though they were rare to begin with. The thinking at the time was that ONE of these kinds of crimes was too many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

 

this whole event is very sad. my dad and i talked about it for a long time on the phone last night. *hugs to everyone involved* peace

 

You didn't read / understand what I wrote. What "gun ban"? The 1997 ban on handguns? Read what I wrote again and try to understand why this 1997 ban is largely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

Again, you entirely misunderstand the 1997 handgun ban and its context in Britain's long history of restrictive gun licensing. Seriously, read what I wrote again, you've just misunderstood the situation entirely and your simplistic point is meaningless as a consequence.

The Dunblane perpetrator owned his handguns legally under license, he was an average member of society not connected to criminal activity. It's possible that he may have sought to obtain handguns illegally if he had not been able to have them legally, but the point is it would have been far more difficult for him to obtain handguns illegally and debatable whether he would have attempted to do so. Removing the right to own handguns necessarily limits the availability of handguns and results in a reduction of the likelihood of handgun crime. The point is obvious.