I have pondered over the fact that so many people have arms in the US, it seems it would be incredibly difficult to ban it. Initially, it could be really dangerous for normal civilians (even if it would then swing the other way, and become a lot safer).
On the other hand, after the second world war, many people had guns in Europe. But it didn't take long to ban them, and that was that.
So it is safe to ban guns when lots of people have them?
He does not have enough votes to change anything. But he may as well use the situation and show who is against it. People in other countries manage to get by without weapons, they would in the US as well. But despite how advanced they think US is, they are backwards in many things in certain states.
Yes but there are documented cases of lives being saved in America because a civilian was armed. A ban would basically be you saying that you don't think those who were saved by an armed civilian deserved to live, the government would be held criminally liable for any homicides after the ban as it would be argued that they had forced someone to be unarmed and defenceless against an attacker. That would bankrupt America alone (although America is doing a good job of bankrupting itself anyway at the minute but that's another story)
Yes but there are documented cases of lives being saved in America because a civilian was armed. A ban would basically be you saying that you don't think those who were saved by an armed civilian deserved to live, the government would be held criminally liable for any homicides after the ban as it would be argued that they had forced someone to be unarmed and defenceless against an attacker. That would bankrupt America alone (although America is doing a good job of bankrupting itself anyway at the minute but that's another story)
So its better to have lots of people murdered because a few people might be saved.
Only if like the NRA you hate Americans does that make sense
Yes but there are documented cases of lives being saved in America because a civilian was armed. A ban would basically be you saying that you don't think those who were saved by an armed civilian deserved to live, the government would be held criminally liable for any homicides after the ban as it would be argued that they had forced someone to be unarmed and defenceless against an attacker. That would bankrupt America alone (although America is doing a good job of bankrupting itself anyway at the minute but that's another story)
The other way to look at this is what about the number of people who are killed accidentally by arms (such as that young boy who accidentally shot his mum after he obtained her gun from her handbag), or those who go on killing sprees (such as the recent story with people getting killed in a church)?
Yes but there are documented cases of lives being saved in America because a civilian was armed. A ban would resulted in those deaths, so while other countries do get by, how many die because they lacked protection? As I say all the time, it's a different culture, no use trying to apply a British solution to it.
Sometimes cultures have to adapt or change to the times. If other civilisations can get by without guns, America should learn to do the same.
I get the fact it's ingrained into them, I really do. Their obsession with the constitution is scary enough.
Fact is that the world changes, societies develop and as they do so must those within it.
So its better to have lots of people murdered because a few people might be saved.
Only if like the NRA you hate Americans does that make sense
But then if you look at the proposal for a ban with that same logic you're saying "better to have lots of unarmed victims murdered because a few people are saved from a spree". Their right to protect themselves is embedded in their culture, what right do you have to say to a family that they are no longer allowed to protect their kids, and should give up their means of defence because you think a law abiding gun owner being disarmed will stop a spree from happening?
But then if you look at the proposal for a ban with that same logic you're saying "better to have lots of unarmed victims murdered because a few people are saved from a spree". Their right to protect themselves is embedded in their culture, what right do you have to say to a family that they are no longer allowed to protect their kids, and should give up their means of defence because you think a law abiding gun owner being disarmed will stop a spree from happening?
They can still defend their family. They just dont need a gun to do so.
And to argue your second point, it's for the same reason drugs are illegal. There may be thousands of sensible drug users who use in moderation but you have to apply something to many even to protect a few. In fact, the majority of 'victimless' crimes are there just to protect people.
Just watching his speech now in the aftermath of the Church Shootings, seems to me he is strongly suggesting that the Right To Bear Arms will have to be considered.
I do think it would be of benefit to the country if they did ban it.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
The 2nd. Amendment, giving the right to bear arms, was put forward in 1789, and ratified in 1791, it has been on the statute for 224 years.
The 18th. Amendment, prohibiting the sale or distribution of alcohol was put forward in 1917, and ratified in 1919.
That was on the statute for 14, almost 15 years, being repealed by the 21st. Amendment in December 1933, the only amendment ever repealed.
I think our pal Barack, or any President for that matter, will have the toughest job in the world in getting the 2nd. Amendment repealed.
As much as I believe in free speech, discussion etc...please don't bother even getting involved in this one...the OP has no intention of having a serious debate about this, and will not respond to anyone else's comments.
Just look at their post history, tells you all you need to know.
There are probably serious issues and debates to be had regarding this issue...but this is not one of them.
....meanwhile,..three pages on, the discussion is in full swing. ;-)
Citizens have weapons for protection because their potential attackers will have guns, too. It would be stupid of them not to, given how easily they can get them. If you disarm you won't need that. Whether it should happen cold turkey or continually is for experts, surely things like that happened elsewhere and there are experiences. They need to move on. With some parts of US very advanced it's not that visible that others are stuck in the past. This shooting wasn't a mad man's deed. It was a heroic deed of a racist protecting his home from black people.
Yes but there are documented cases of lives being saved in America because a civilian was armed. A ban would basically be you saying that you don't think those who were saved by an armed civilian deserved to live, the government would be held criminally liable for any homicides after the ban as it would be argued that they had forced someone to be unarmed and defenceless against an attacker. That would bankrupt America alone (although America is doing a good job of bankrupting itself anyway at the minute but that's another story)
That's like citing the few cases where not wearing a seat belt saved someone's life.
They can still defend their family. They just dont need a gun to do so.
And to argue your second point, it's for the same reason drugs are illegal. There may be thousands of sensible drug users who use in moderation but you have to apply something to many even to protect a few. In fact, the majority of 'victimless' crimes are there just to protect people.
There will be gun control. It's a matter of when, not if. Fighting gun manufacturers is like fighting tobacco companies, but eventually it did happen that tobacco companies had to back down.
I'm not sure if there even has to be amendments but interpretations, to do this. If it's what people want, it will happen.
Spot on. No-one outside of the US damages their citizens more than they do themselves. That's a tragic way to live and under such a permanent state of fear of your own people.
Spot on. No-one outside of the US damages their citizens more than they do themselves. That's a tragic way to live and under such a permanent state of fear of your own people.
I fully agree with Stewarts comments, he pretty much sums it all up. Some excellent points made, that should hopefully make people think a little more deeply not only about what happened, but more importantly what happens next...
I fully agree with Stewarts comments, he pretty much sums it all up. Some excellent points made, that should hopefully make people think a little more deeply not only about what happened, but more importantly what happens next...
Looking at Worldwide statistics like these, from 2 years ago and the numbers continue to rise, it's eye watering stuff.
The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.
If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
Atlanta's rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).
Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
Phoenix's rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.
Yes, it's true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros.
Officials said that shootings were up by more than 9% compared to this time last year. Homicides are up by nearly 20%, and more involve guns than usual.
Then we have an example of the oppositions POV, Fox and friends, oblivious to the overall fact that more guns in any country equal more deaths.
After a gunman opened fire at the historic Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, SC, killing 9, police concluded the shooting constituted a hate crime. Twenty-one-year-old shooting suspect Dylann Roof, who was given a gun for his birthday, reportedly said, ‘I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our county,’ before firing his gun. He has also donned shirts with country flags of racist African states in the past.
Similar to past shootings, the latest has already re-ignited the ongoing debate about gun laws in the state. After the shooting, for example, Fox & Friends advocated for more guns, arguing people could’ve defended themselves if they were armed.
“Had somebody in that church had a gun, they probably would have been able to stop him,” host Steve Doocy remarked. “If somebody was there, they would have had the opportunity to pull out their weapon and take him out.”
Why do people simplistically expect repealing the 2nd amendment to change anything?
It won't take illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, that would take action.
Whatever action is proposed could be done today, leaving the 2nd amendment and law-abiding people alone.
Taking legal guns out of the hands of people is a good start though. Also taxing and out pricing guns. Lots of people have to buy 'loosie' cigarettes now because they can't afford a pack. The same principle can apply to guns. DUIs are another example. Now you get serious time for them.
Comments
On the other hand, after the second world war, many people had guns in Europe. But it didn't take long to ban them, and that was that.
So it is safe to ban guns when lots of people have them?
Yes but there are documented cases of lives being saved in America because a civilian was armed. A ban would basically be you saying that you don't think those who were saved by an armed civilian deserved to live, the government would be held criminally liable for any homicides after the ban as it would be argued that they had forced someone to be unarmed and defenceless against an attacker. That would bankrupt America alone (although America is doing a good job of bankrupting itself anyway at the minute but that's another story)
Only if like the NRA you hate Americans does that make sense
The other way to look at this is what about the number of people who are killed accidentally by arms (such as that young boy who accidentally shot his mum after he obtained her gun from her handbag), or those who go on killing sprees (such as the recent story with people getting killed in a church)?
Sometimes cultures have to adapt or change to the times. If other civilisations can get by without guns, America should learn to do the same.
I get the fact it's ingrained into them, I really do. Their obsession with the constitution is scary enough.
Fact is that the world changes, societies develop and as they do so must those within it.
But then if you look at the proposal for a ban with that same logic you're saying "better to have lots of unarmed victims murdered because a few people are saved from a spree". Their right to protect themselves is embedded in their culture, what right do you have to say to a family that they are no longer allowed to protect their kids, and should give up their means of defence because you think a law abiding gun owner being disarmed will stop a spree from happening?
They can still defend their family. They just dont need a gun to do so.
And to argue your second point, it's for the same reason drugs are illegal. There may be thousands of sensible drug users who use in moderation but you have to apply something to many even to protect a few. In fact, the majority of 'victimless' crimes are there just to protect people.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
The 2nd. Amendment, giving the right to bear arms, was put forward in 1789, and ratified in 1791, it has been on the statute for 224 years.
The 18th. Amendment, prohibiting the sale or distribution of alcohol was put forward in 1917, and ratified in 1919.
That was on the statute for 14, almost 15 years, being repealed by the 21st. Amendment in December 1933, the only amendment ever repealed.
I think our pal Barack, or any President for that matter, will have the toughest job in the world in getting the 2nd. Amendment repealed.
....meanwhile,..three pages on, the discussion is in full swing. ;-)
That's like citing the few cases where not wearing a seat belt saved someone's life.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
Which is good, but the OP has not returned to the thread to discuss any further.
And I still maintain what I said about their post history.
There will be gun control. It's a matter of when, not if. Fighting gun manufacturers is like fighting tobacco companies, but eventually it did happen that tobacco companies had to back down.
I'm not sure if there even has to be amendments but interpretations, to do this. If it's what people want, it will happen.
Spot on. No-one outside of the US damages their citizens more than they do themselves. That's a tragic way to live and under such a permanent state of fear of your own people.
It won't take illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, that would take action.
Whatever action is proposed could be done today, leaving the 2nd amendment and law-abiding people alone.
I fully agree with Stewarts comments, he pretty much sums it all up. Some excellent points made, that should hopefully make people think a little more deeply not only about what happened, but more importantly what happens next...
Easiest way would be to change the amendment so that firearms are only permitted at your home. Ban conceal/open carry.
Looking at Worldwide statistics like these, from 2 years ago and the numbers continue to rise, it's eye watering stuff.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/
New York.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/new-york-city-police-gun-violence-gangs-weather
Then we have an example of the oppositions POV, Fox and friends, oblivious to the overall fact that more guns in any country equal more deaths.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671110/state-gun-laws-south-carolina/
And their attitude towards capital punishment.
Taking legal guns out of the hands of people is a good start though. Also taxing and out pricing guns. Lots of people have to buy 'loosie' cigarettes now because they can't afford a pack. The same principle can apply to guns. DUIs are another example. Now you get serious time for them.
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II
There's already a total ban for criminals, why not just enforce that and see how it goes?