What the hell?! Virginia thread

That may be true, but you need to take cultural differences into account as well, which it doesen't seem most of you are. The right to firearms is very important to most americans, we don't all go around shooting, but it's nice to know we have the right to if we want to. I myself don't even own a gun, but i'll fight tooth and nail for the right. Personally I feel that all the talk of homicide rates is irrelevant, the sociological conditions in america have created alot of severely disturbed people, these people will kill by any means necessary, and most of us want to be able to protect ourselves from that. Our country is turning into a tyranny, while it may be trite, our citizenry wants to retain the right to fight back if ever the need should occur, taking away our firearms effectively hands over any symbolance of power the people retain. Also (and I think I said this to you or someone in another thread) by taking away the second amendment, you are chipping away at our already very fragile constitution. It's only a matter of time after so much chipping away that it completely crumbles, and our constitution is the very last thing protecting us from complete and total oppression.

 

Read Post 31 Paul.

 

The irony of it is that the very people you're accusing of turning America into a tyranny are the very same people who lobby most passionately for the right to bear arms, whilst supporting the death penalty and denouncing freedoms such as a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, stem cell research and a harmless spliff....

 

This is a sophistry. I would far rather be accosted by a madman with a banana than one who has had no difficulty whatsoever in obtaining a semi-automatic weapon. Take away the ability to easily get hold of guns and you reduce gun crime by a huge amount. Once the country is no longer flooded with guns so that anyone can get hold of one, there's no longer a need for you to be armed in order to protect yourself. That's a vicious circle anyway - the more guns people buy for protection, the more guns get stolen and get into the hands of those prepared to use them. Ban guns, and you instantly reduce gun crime. It's as simple as that.

Of course there are sociological differences, but frankly the western liberal democracies have been converging for some time and now these sociological differences really aren't all that great. As I said in another thread - in the 18th century it made sense for the US to have an armed citizenry, now it's a hindrance to personal freedom and not a boon.

I'm sure Americans love having the right to own guns, that does not mean it's a good right for them to have.

 

I agree, but when it comes to campaigning, on the surface they support firearms, however their votes tell a different story (with the exception of G.W. only thing the mans ever stood for that I agree with)

 

sorry man post 31 jeez whos counting .....royal mail aint what it used to be .

 

Originally Posted by phoenix_indigo
You can have a severe mental illness and still buy a gun in the States. It's only if the court has said you are mentally deranged can you not purchase a weapon.

"It's all messed up.
this is true."

I agree that gun control needs to be handled with more attention and care in this country so as to restrict access to degenerates while not stepping on the rights of law abiding citizens. I know that when you purchase a gun in some of the less restrictive states you can be mentally ill and they may not know because the only background check database they look at is the federal one and not any state or city records of criminal activity or history of mental illnesses. We need an overhaul of our system but we dont need laws that simply aim to villify weapons, and unfortunately thats what the gun control advocates and the mainstream media want to do. So that we are all effectively made into docile sheeple ready and willing to accept whatever fascist dictates they hand down.
Guns don't kill, people kill.


Love for all nations

 

Yes, Britain, post-1997....

 

Well of course if people want to commit crimes they will, but those crimes are less serious and cause less injuries and deaths if they don't involve guns. And yes you're right, I was making the simple point that banning or strictly controlling the sale of guns means there will be fewer guns in circulation and consequently fewer gun crimes.

 

dunblane?

 

...what about explosives? crossbows? chemical/biological weapons? Do you really believe if a moratorium were put on firearms they would just "dissappear"? In reality the market would be even more flooded with blackmarket weapons than it is now, your proposition just makes it impossible for sane, legal citizens to obtain protection.

the vast majority of firearms used in crimes in the US are illegal, again, do you think these firearms are going to vanish into thin air? How long does it take metal to decompose?? What about illegal smuggling of firearms/ammunition from Canada and Mexico?? How do you propose to deal with a citizenry left defenseless and criminals with the only ones left access to firearms?? Violence and crime would increase exponentially if this were to be implemented, crazies and criminals would lose all inhibition because they would be the only ones left with firearms.

that sounds good but it's overtly simplistic, you can never rid the United States of firearms, we have more firearms than people......

I disagree, the differences are VAST, I don't think you people truly realize the level of ignorance and the violent mentality surrounding the average american. Ronald Mcdonald is right in that respect, most americans lack civility.

I disagree, for reasons you already know.

I'm sure Americans love having the right to own guns, that does not mean it's a good right for them to have.[/QUOTE]

 

Dunblane was 1996, and it prompted legislation to outlaw hand guns. Since then there hasn't, to my knowledge, been a single school shooting in Britain....

 

yeah sal ........guns are bad man .........britain now has a problem with knives which needs addressing .

 

Haha, a most excellent put down. I think I may have to ressurect the old Phoenix Ideologically Sound and Safe awards. Yes, I hereby bestow upon you, Lithium, the great honour of a PISS....

 

You're talking absolute garbage. The market is flooded with black market weapons because they are so easy to obtain legally and then be sold on or stolen. It's perfectly clear that if you remove the virtually unlimited sale of legal weapons then you significantly reduce the number of guns in circulation and the ease with which criminals, children, madmen can get hold of them. Reducing the unlimited circulation of guns will reduce gun crime meaning that people will eventually no longer require guns as "protection". As already stated, people buying guns for their own protection is itself a large part of the problem, and a large source of guns for those who will use them for crime. It's a vicious circle. Encouraging people to buy more and more guns to protect themselves is making the problem worse.

The one thing you're right about is that it would be incredibly difficult to get rid of guns in the US because there are simply so many in circulation. That's not an argument that the principle that banning guns would not reduce gun crime though, just that in the USA it would be difficult to police and would take a long time to have this effect. This is precisely because the problem has got so out of hand in the States. But the principle is sound.

I don't really think this is the case. A majority of most populations is fairly ignorant. True there is probably a larger gap between rich and poor in the US than in most liberal democracies and a large problem with disaffection among the deprived, but both these elements are arguments to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The one thing more frightening than a disaffected ignorant sociopath, is a disaffected ignorant sociopath with a gun!

 

Why thankyou! The one thing I really wanted, was a PISS

 

I disagree, their is so much wrong with these statements I don't know where to begin.....

This contradicts the first part of your post.........so your solution is basically to let innocent people be murdered for a long time and eventually it will work itself out.........yeah that makes alot of sense.

 

Not at all. The principle that introducing strict gun controls will significantly reduce gun crime is sound - and in fact a fairly obvious point. Nonetheless it's important to recognise the situation in the States - a place so flooded with guns that a blanket ban could not happen overnight. One sensible way of introducing gun control would be to introduce it gradually - I really don't think it could be done any other way. Perhaps by initially introducing controls on the sale of new weapons, with a view to moving towards the banning of certain kinds of weapons and the introduction of stricter licensing for the ones already legally in circulation. It would be a slow process to rid the States of its gun culture, but some control is better than no control, and quite obviously placing limits on access to weapons is going to gradually bring down instances of gun crime.

 

You guys have comparable numbers of murders; the only difference is that the choice of weapons is different- in America we use guns and in the UK you use knives.

 

No we don't, we have between 600 and 800 murders a year. The US Murder rate is around 18,000 a year. Given the US population is less than six times the size of the British population, these figures are nowhere near comparable....