Discussion about rights to bear arms

[v-600]

You live in the UK, and you don't understand why the American Constitution guaranteed the rights of citizens to bear arms?

Read up on the aftermath of the last two Scottish risings. "He created a desert and called it peace."

Thankfully, our forefathers had the foresight to make sure that never happened here.

That I will. I said at the start the whole topic isn't something I have ever really looked into before.

 

[Imp]

You can't re-cork the genie. There are quite literally billions of firearms in the US. The overwhelming vast majority of them are never used by a criminal to cause any harm. To boot, gun control efforts in the US have always met with abject failure. We have no-firearms zones, but criminals are if anything more bold there in using them, while the responsbile citizens who obey the bans are left defenseless. A nationwide ban would simply hurt more than it would help.

For that reason, I don't see a point in having a conversation about guns in the US of A.

If somehow between the gun advocates and gun lobbies they actually manage to "ban guns", the guberment will need to raid the homes of millions of people. Won't be any shootouts with crazies, criminals, etc. on a daily basis, huh? And then Mexico will start smuggling them in along with their narcotics...

 

[sixone]

That I will. I said at the start the whole topic isn't something I have ever really looked into before.

Guns in the UK weren't taken away to control crime. They were taken away so that the government could control the people, and never have to face an armed revolution.

That's why the US chose to deal with crime, instead of being controlled by our government. While some of those crimes are utterly atrocious, it allows greater freedom for law-abiding citizens.

 

[waggy]

For that reason, I don't see a point in having a conversation about guns in the US of A.

If somehow between the gun advocates and gun lobbies they actually manage to "ban guns", the guberment will need to raid the homes of millions of people. Won't be any shootouts with crazies, criminals, etc. on a daily basis, huh? And then Mexico will start smuggling them in along with their narcotics...

htey would need to RAID every home in the US. with no evidence of a crime. yeah that is going to go over well with the US population.

i would hate to see the death toll over it. if it flat out don't start another civil war.

 

[rudeguy]

as a UK citizen, you should post in the right forum.


There are already too many threads on this. Its stupid, its old and its beat to death.

 

[v-600]

So, hypothetical situation now. If the US gov did try and pass a blanket ban, would you take up arms against your government to break the law?

 

[waggy]

So, hypothetical situation now. If the US gov did try and pass a blanket ban, would you take up arms against your government to break the law?

no reason to say yes or no to that. since it won't happen. I do know I wouldn't give over my guns and wouldn't allow them to search my house.

 

[KevinCU]

That I will. I said at the start the whole topic isn't something I have ever really looked into before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

 

[TallBill]

I cannot defend myself with a stick. Over 100,000 reported cases a year of people defending themselves with firearms. Most likely 2-3 times as many unreported, since 95% of these cases go without a shot being fired.

Cold hard facts prove that letting people defend themselves is a good thing. More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott is an excellent read. In the last decade states have continued to expand their laws to allow more citizens to carry legally.

 

[v-600]

no reason to say yes or no to that. since it won't happen.

This isn't meant at you personally (its why I only quoted the first part of your answer), but I always thought the main point of a hypothetical question was that it let you think about things that wouldn't happen and ask what if.

People skirted over the other question I asked about high profile accidents, except that one wasn't hypothetical.

 

[sixone]

So, hypothetical situation now. If the US gov did try and pass a blanket ban, would you take up arms against your government to break the law?

That will never happen.

Hypothetically, I'd just hide mine, and yes, that means breaking the law. I think that's probably what most Americans would do.

 

[spidey07]

Sorry I should have been more precise. You are allowed guns/arms. It would not be unconstitutional to impose a blanket ban on guns, but it would be ineffective.

It would be highly unconstitutional to ban firearms. Our supreme court has decided it is an enumerated and natural right.

 

[OverVolt]

You can arm yourself with a big stick. You don't need a gun. So where does the fascination with guns come from?

Because America has alot of guns. Chances are a criminal will have a gun. If you banned guns, guess what? The criminals will still have guns, and the law abiding people will not.

I don't believe it is possible to actually eradicate every single gun in the country, its not realistic nor feasible. They are essentially 1800s technology and last for several lifetimes with minimal maintenance (from the law professor who teaches a graduate level gun ethics class who was talking on CNN before they cut him off - lol).

It would be another prohibition, or drug war style endeavor and the result would just be helpless citizens and empowered criminals. America is a large spread out country. There is already precedence for prohibition and the drug war not working, and a total gun ban would be no different.

Stuff like the Holocaust? Yea that happened in Europe.

The 1938 German Weapons Act
-Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

Thats why the 2nd Amendment is in the constitution.

Its not like we need more guns, as if everyone being given 3 guns at birth would reduce crime. Its that the right people should be allowed to own them. The good guys, not the bad guys. Simple as that. Gun control just makes it harder for the good guys to defend themselves.

-"Gun free zones" (they don't work apparently)
-Places like Chicago and DC with strict gun laws (murder rate skyrockets, they know people are helpless)
-Places like NJ with strict gun laws (Where the shooting happened, no one could stop him)

In places like Texas it is legal to keep guns in your car. Imagine if as soon as a teacher heard shooting they could have gone to the car and protected their class instead of hiding as kids got killed. In NJ you aren't allowed to have a gun in the car. People don't need to go around wild-west style open carrying a pistol on the hip everywhere like a LEO, but it would seem there is a correlation between lack of access to guns and mass murders. NJ is a state with highly restricted access to firearms even if you owned one.

The shooter in NJ broke like a bazillion laws before he even stepped foot into the school.

 

[v-600]

as a UK citizen, you should post in the right forum.


There are already too many threads on this. Its stupid, its old and its beat to death.

I missed the foreigners only section

 

[BladeVenom]

The UK had a lower crime rate than the USA, even when the UK still had the freedom to keep and bear arms.

How well did your gun control laws keep you safe on 7/7 2005? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

 

[v-600]

Because America has alot of guns.

Is this something Americans in general/you personally are happy with?

Chances are a criminal will have a gun. If you banned guns, guess what? The criminals will still have guns, and the law abiding people will not.

I don't believe it is possible to actually eradicate every single gun in the country, its not realistic nor feasible. They are essentially 1800s technology and last for several lifetimes with minimal maintenance (from the law professor who teaches a graduate level gun ethics class who was talking on CNN before they cut him off - lol).

Would you approve of ways to cut (not eradicate) the numbers of guns in the states for both legal and illegal use if it did not impinge on your rights to have one?

I guess what I am trying to say is even if you didn't feel you needed one, would you still have a gun just because you could or because its your right to have one?

 

[waggy]

The UK had a lower crime rate than the USA, even when the UK still had the freedom to keep and bear arms.

How well did your gun control laws keep you safe on 7/7 2005? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

worked great. they didn't use guns!

 

[Arkaign]

Is this something Americans in general/you personally are happy with?



Would you approve of ways to cut (not eradicate) the numbers of guns in the states for both legal and illegal use if it did not impinge on your rights to have one?

I guess what I am trying to say is even if you didn't feel you needed one, would you still have a gun just because you could or because its your right to have one?

As an American, it doesn't bother me in the least that there are quite a lot of firearms in the country.

I would not support any effort to cut the numbers of guns by government action. For this simple reason :

Criminals don't follow laws.

Laws will only impact (negatively) law abiding firearms owners (as well as non-owners due to the higher ratio of criminals to law abiding owners, that ratio always works to the detriment to everyone's safety as proven by gun control efforts in the US).

 

[v-600]

The UK had a lower crime rate than the USA, even when the UK still had the freedom to keep and bear arms.

How well did your gun control laws keep you safe on 7/7 2005? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

Well for one it meant that the perpetrators used homemade bombs and not guns.

The article says the bombs were detonated in quick succession. I am not sure having an armed public would have stopped them.

EDIT: Waggy beat me to it.

 

[sixone]

Well for one it meant that the perpetrators used homemade bombs and not guns.

The article says the bombs were detonated in quick succession. I am not sure having an armed public would have stopped them.

That may be true, but they probably couldn't have done as much damage with guns as they did with bombs.

 

[tokie]

You gosh darn foreigners wit ur laws n stoof.

Aint no big daddy guvmint gunna take mah guns away!

No trust that nannah state u nastay socialist. Youse can trust me with gunz, MR. Random Online Internet Guy. The po-po? No you can't trust those slackers with gunz. You gotta arm yourself brotha!

Praise Baby Jesus for givin me CCWS!

 

[Arkaign]

Well for one it meant that the perpetrators used homemade bombs and not guns.

The article says the bombs were detonated in quick succession. I am not sure having an armed public would have stopped them.

EDIT: Waggy beat me to it.

I don't think any reasonable person is trying to say that an armed populace can prevent all crime. Rather, that a disarmed populace is more vulnerable to armed criminals.

The terrorist attacks in the UK are just an example of the fact that dedicated murderers will find a way by hook or by crook to accomplish their goals, laws or no laws. Similarly, the mass shooter at the movie theatre in Colorado had a cache of explosives at his apartment. If he had been unable to aquire firearms, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that he would have committed his murders with those instead, potentially killing hundreds rather than dozens.

 

[v-600]

As an American, it doesn't bother me in the least that there are quite a lot of firearms in the country.

Thanks. The news doesn't often give answers like this one. In discussions on TV all to often the views are polarised and only the extreme points are considered news worthy.

I guess it doesn't make good headlines to say "most Americans aren't bothered by guns in their everyday lives, grocery shopping continues as normal".

You only get the Charlton Hestons or the school massacres making the news.

 

[waggy]

Well for one it meant that the perpetrators used homemade bombs and not guns.

The article says the bombs were detonated in quick succession. I am not sure having an armed public would have stopped them.

EDIT: Waggy beat me to it.

you miss my sarcasm. The fact someone wants to commit mass murder is going to find a way no matter the law.

I bet bombs are against the law in the UK yet it still happened and how many died?

crazy people with an agenda are going to accomplish that task. no matter the law. or what they have to do to do it.

 

[waggy]

You only get the Charlton Hestons or the school massacres making the news.

which leads us to what i believe the main cause of so many shooting that happen together. the MEDIA.

they take the bad and amp it up by 1000 times. the shooters name, face, statistics (how many shots fired vs how many hit), how many killed, etc etc etc. then its on the news 24/7 for weeks. They make the killer infamous. so it leads to copycats and other insane people planning and trying it.