What Gun controllers don't want you to know
- Thread starter ALS
- Start date
- Status
What wasn't mentioned is that the homicide rate in the US was 3.6 times higher than England in 2002. Why do you think it's higher ? The homicide rate in the south, which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the US, is 4.3 times higher.
The homicide rate in DC, which has gun control, is MANY times higher than that in the neighboring counties in Virginia, which have no gun control.
The morons in DC like to blame their homicide rate on the easy availability of guns from Virginia, but they have no answer as to why Virginia's homicide rate is so much lower.
I have an answer--it's because we don't have liberal politicians (like Marion Barry) that cultivate social pathology.
The report depends heavily on selected trends whilst ignoring total crime rates, but there has never been a 'right" to carry arms in the UK in recent times, so no transition from a "happy time" to liberal angst here. The restrictions have been aimed at gun club members particularly, so nothing radical. If you carried a weapon on the person in the UK before 1992, you were risking imprisonment. Weapons kept at home, including shotguns, had to be kept securely locked, and were subject to inspection. You can still keep shotguns - I've used one recently for clay-pigeon shoots, so if you were really paranoid you just have to be fairly respectable and join a shooting club. Not a lot of demand so I guess the populace are not over-fearful, except of the drunks on a Friday! Trying to compare conditions between UK and USA is extremely difficult if you don't actually know the context - which the cited report clearly does not. Up until recently, with the advent of Yardie gangs and their cocaine trade, and other inner-city gun carrying trends, police did not require to carry guns. They still do not, except in certain areas, and for security purposes, e.g at airports. Reliance is placed on support vehicles and trained police marksmen. The crooks do not take these people on - certain death. Over-all, not a convincing argument for exporting a free-for -all gun carrying society. But you carry on - its your business. Just don't try to tell the UK how wrong we are.
He lost me at:
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not for gun control, nor am I against it, per se. I think that there need to be laws in place to define an acceptable place for firearms in our society, but I also think that we've got 99% of what we need already on the books. The differences between the US and the UK go FAR beyond gun control laws. This article is VASTLY oversimplifying those many subtle differences in our culture to try to prove a point.
In short, I think this article is poorly researched and very biased.
OK, I'll don my flame suit now.
I knew right then that he was pushing a certain point of view and scanned the rest of the article to make sure I was right. You can do research to support any point of view on the face of the planet, it doesn't mean you're right or wrong.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not for gun control, nor am I against it, per se. I think that there need to be laws in place to define an acceptable place for firearms in our society, but I also think that we've got 99% of what we need already on the books. The differences between the US and the UK go FAR beyond gun control laws. This article is VASTLY oversimplifying those many subtle differences in our culture to try to prove a point.
In short, I think this article is poorly researched and very biased.
OK, I'll don my flame suit now.
You don't need a flame suit. There really is a difference between UK and US that is a lot more than gun control. Nice post!
THANK YOU MATT! As Sprintman said "You don't need a flame suit." I too am discouraged by both sides on this issue. I am most definitely in support of our right to own firearms. Unfortunatly it seems as if the debate is held between those who want to ban guns and those who want no controls whatsoever. The issue that I run into comes with lack of knowledge. The average person who is out there supporting more gun control laws is doing so simply because someone told them that guns were going to kill their child or some other sort of nonsense. Unfortunately this dilemma goes far further than the gun control issue. People need to inform themselves and think in a logical manner. Wait a minute, how's that ever going to happen.
Thanks Sprintman and Carrera. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who finds problems with both sides of this issue. Both sides are so hard-headed that a compromise doesn't seem possible in the near future.
Actually, in my ideal world, carrying a gun for self defense would be something laughable. No one would even consider it because it wouldn't be necessary. However, this is not an ideal world and certain people need that type of protection. I think we can work towards this ideal by improving education and, in so doing, eliminating poverty and blight. If everyone was productive and successful, we wouldn't have a crime problem. I think that's where we need to focus our energy.
Actually, in my ideal world, carrying a gun for self defense would be something laughable. No one would even consider it because it wouldn't be necessary. However, this is not an ideal world and certain people need that type of protection. I think we can work towards this ideal by improving education and, in so doing, eliminating poverty and blight. If everyone was productive and successful, we wouldn't have a crime problem. I think that's where we need to focus our energy.
Chris: With all due respect, your post is a poster child for the overall silliness with which this issue is portrayed. First, "gun control" has become a nebulous slogan, rather than any specific thing. Just what is meant by "gun control"? It seems it means something different depending upon which group you're talking to (or about). And if you call what we have today a form of "gun control", well then by your own logic, it works pretty well: a quarter billion potentially deadly weapons NOT used as such, sounds pretty good to me! And what of the Second Amendment? If you actually read it, it's clearly premised folks having weapons so that we can maintain a "well regulated militia." If you want to see some vigorous "gun control," check out how we do "gun control" in the military! The fastest way to put an entire Marine Corps base on alert, short of Osama bin Laden showing up at the front gate, is for someone to misplace a weapon.
I'm not trying to pick on you, and I'm no fan of government over-regulation of anything, but this is one issue where I've just become fed up with the almost meaningless slinging of slogans by both sides. Clearly, some measures that might be called "gun control" do work, while others are complete foolishness. Moreover, the purists on both sides need to realize that it's extremely unlikely that they are going to "have their way" completely, so it seems to me that we're all better served by trying to decide what might offer some hope of keeping weapons out of the hands of the bad guys while not becoming ridiculous for the rest of us good guys.
I think gun control init's current form in many states is about all that is needed/acceptable, and the ban on "assault weapons" is just stupid propaganda. I have no problem with someone needing to get an ID card stating they can buy weapons as long as the criteria, is along the lines of no criminal record, any honest upstanding citizen should be able to purchase without any sort of specific reason otherwise you are limiting them for no reason. When I lived in NJ you needed a permit for each handgun and it was issued for that particular serial number gun after the police did a backround check, even that is OK but maybe a bit too much. All that and still all it does is stop bad guys from LEGALLY buying weapons, and in no way stops them from getting weapons alltogether. You want to stop crime start handing out and enforcing real penalties, give a crook 10years in the clink make him stay there for 10 not 5 or 7. Guns are not the problem or the answer, criminals are the problem, and the answer will have many pieces yet to be found.
Here's some food for thought: in Florida, we have a provision that's publicised as "10-20-LIFE, pull a gun and you're done". You get 10 years for displaying a gun while committing a crime, 20 if you fire it during the commission of the crime, and life if you injure someone while shooting during the crime. Florida law also mandates serving at least 80% of any sentence. BTW, interestingly, law enforcement is one of the stronges supporters of "gain time" provisions. The corrections officers like their "guests" having an incentive to behave. Also, the "LIFE" provision is often questioned as creating a perverse motivation to kill -- if you're facing life anyway, why not just go ahead and kill the victim in the hope that by doing so, no one can ID you later. On the whole, however, I think 10-20-L is a good idea, gun control aimed where it can have some positive effect.
2nd Amendment means that the Army has a right to bear arms??!??
That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard ekpolk. Who would want an Army without arms? Isn't that kind of implied in the name...
"We the founders of this great nation want to ensure that our citizens are protected by an army that is allowed to bear arms" YAY!!! Thank you! Because the last time we had an army without arms the results weren't too favorable.
That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard ekpolk. Who would want an Army without arms? Isn't that kind of implied in the name...
"We the founders of this great nation want to ensure that our citizens are protected by an army that is allowed to bear arms" YAY!!! Thank you! Because the last time we had an army without arms the results weren't too favorable.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
No Jason, if you want to be ugly about it, your failure to honestly and fully portray the Second Amendment is what's asinine. Have you ever actually read it, I mean the whole thing, not the selectively quoted version of it??? The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when citizens were expected to show up for duty with their own weapons, ready to go. Like it or not, that's the context in which the 2nd Amendment was created. The whole one-sentence amendment which you chose to selectively quote (why did you do that???) reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Ever hear of the concept of the WHOLE truth???
I will think what I want, as you do too. Are you saying that all lawmakers, from the most absurdly leftist liberals, to the rightest of the right all are after the same thing in the "gun control" department???
I was simply pointing out the word PEOPLE. Which is repeated elsewhere in the Bill of Rights and means the same thing HERE as it does in them.
Is Alexander Hamilton asinine too?
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. "
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. "
- Status
Similar threads
