Who the hell is going to be attacking America in such a way that handguns would be any use at all in defending against them?!
THE BRITISH! The British are coming!
I think American gun laws are slightly silly, but hey... if they want to keep them legal despite something like 30,000 people per year being killed with a gun then I guess it's up to them.
I think most Americans don't give up their guns for fear that when they do the little green men are going to come down in a spaceship and they won't have anything to shoot them with.
Can anyone explain to me why guns are still such a massive part of American culture in 2011 and, why, despite so many horrible shooting incidents over the years, they are doing absolutely nothing to tighten their gun laws...they don't even seem to think they NEED tightening.
Does this thing America has with guns go back to the wild west days, or something? I don't get it.
We've had two multiple killers with guns of our own this year alone. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if someone had a gun to take down Bird./Moat.
I actually don't want liberal gun laws but we're hardly in a position to judge.
I think American gun laws are slightly silly, but hey... if they want to keep them legal despite something like 30,000 people per year being killed with a gun then I guess it's up to them.
Can anyone explain to me why guns are still such a massive part of American culture in 2011 and, why, despite so many horrible shooting incidents over the years, they are doing absolutely nothing to tighten their gun laws...they don't even seem to think they NEED tightening.
Does this thing America has with guns go back to the wild west days, or something? I don't get it.
1) It's a constitutional right.
2) Personally, I own guns to protect my family.
3) Tightening gun laws don't have anything to do with legal, law abiding citizens, purchasing guns. To buy a gun you have to go through background checks. Criminals don't do this, they buy a one illegally off the street. Me disarming means I don't have a gun, but the criminal still does. Almost everyone I know owns a gun, none of them have been involved in 'horrible shootings'.
Contrary to popular belief, you can't just walk into a store and buy a gun.
We've had two multiple killers with guns of our own this year alone. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if someone had a gun to take down Bird./Moat.
But on the flipside you have to ask how many more multiple killers we might have had if guns were much more prevalent in this country.
I think it's hard and misleading to compare knives and guns. Knives are implements that have a legitimate, mainstream, widespread everyday use - in the kitchen, for example. Aren't knives that are designed as offensive weapons (i.e. not your common kitchen knife) just as illegal as guns in the UK?
So if people co-opt a common implement as a weapon that's hard to deal with.
Guns - for the large part - don't have a legitimate, mainstream, widespread, common use. They are just plain weapons, other than the aforementioned hunting/shooting/reenactment niches. Your average handgun in America is simply a weapon, whether it's used or not. Your average knife in the UK is simply a kitchen utensil that could potentially be a weapon.
That seems to be a significant and important distinction, to me.
We have strict gun laws so a higher number of people are killed with knives.
It's not the weapon that needs addressing but the psyche of people who would happily use violence with a gun or knife against another person.
We've had two multiple killers with guns of our own this year alone. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if someone had a gun to take down Bird./Moat.
I actually don't want liberal gun laws but we're hardly in a position to judge.
Yeah, two events which were massive news and everyone was pretty shocked at them. They were rare. I believe that he Cumbria shootings doubled the annual death rate from guns. We have gun crime, of course, but it's nowhere near the level we hear from America; since we don't live there we get a watered down version of it. I'd imagine we don't get to hear about most killings from guns in America.
We hear about school shootings in America weekly it seems.
We can't ban kitchen knives in the UK because we know that the problem lies with the people that use them. The stop and search tactics that the police use here are futile and they know it won't help in the long run. A psychopathic, deranged individual can to resort to any means possible to kill someone, and if they get one knife taken off them they can easily get another.
What's the sense in banning something that you can legally own - whether a kitchen knife or (in America's case) a gun to resolve the problem of a tiny handful of people misusing them.
And stupid yanks? Who are merely shocked and upset by the news of one person deciding to kill people to make a point? You know them so well.
While we're at it, let's ban all the materials that can be used to make a bomb. Let's ban anything that can be used as poison as well. Let's ban all guns, knives, and bullets. Heck, a sharp pencil can poke an eye out.
Honestly, I'm not totally against gun control, but where does it end? The government has the duty to protect us, but we shouldn't have to surrender all freedoms to be protected by a government that can turn on us.
I wouldn't say that Americans are afraid of government. Rather, we probably all have a little bit of Thomas Jefferson in us in that we want the right to govern ourselves to an extent. Owning a gun is part of that for some people. If the government has weapons and the people do not, it's much harder to prevent the government from gaining more power.
Does that mean that taking up arms against the government is okay? In most cases, no. It should be the last resort. However, we should have the freedom to defend ourselves from criminals and governments. Assassinating a politician is not okay, though. We do have a democratic system and hopefully it works so that our voices are heard. Anyone who assassinates a politician (unless he was Hitler, but that's different) is a lunatic, not a hero.
The Second Amendment still applies today. We still have a right to own guns. However, it seems like it was previously put in there because if Americans had not had guns, then King George III could have done whatever he wanted to us. The founding fathers wanted to protect government from becoming too powerful in the future.
If every citizen in Germany had kept guns and rebelled against the Nazi government, would that have been "nonsense"?
What about if people in Nazi Germany had taken up arms to defend themselves from Hitler? Do you think they would be "insane" for defending themselves against the government of Germany?
They did...
Throughout the early '30s there were frequent gunfights between Communists and SA gunmen; during his whirlwind electioneering tour at the end of 1932, Hitler's cavalcade was sniped at as it crossed into "Red" Saxony.
In 1942 the first large roundup of Jews in Berlin - the national capital retained a LARGE Jewish population until late in the war because of their vital role in Germany's munition industry - was resisted with violence and firearms :eek: And rather unexpected it was too! goebbels ranted about the nerve of them doing so in his Diary.
You seem to miss the fact that even if every citizen in Germany had had a gun it wouldn't have mattered because they were brainwashed into believing and worshiping their government.
There are two aspects to this...
1/ Firearms ownership in Hitler's Germany was HUGE, I've seen it estimated at something like 45% of all households possessed one or more guns! :eek: Sporting rifles, personal protection weapons, WWI bring-backs...in fact, firearms were SO widespread that the Nazis were able to use the forced removal of guns from Jews as their pretext for Krsytallnacht...
2. There actually was no 100% brainwashing of the German people. The Nazis tried - and tried hard - but didn't manage it. for example - despite all the many times it was made compulsory, membership of boys in the Hitler Youth was never more than 65% nationwide at ANY point.
What the Nazis DID have however was 100% control of ALL law enforcement agencies and bodies, and an informer-based law-enforcement system - the pattern for East Germany's Stasi later....and of course 100% control of ALL the armed forces of the state. Except in very local and specific circumstances - both armed revolt and the ability to organise an armed revolt were impossible.
When the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution it's reasonable to assume that the right to bear arms exists for the reason defined by the Constitution. What is the point of speculating on the need to defend the country from the government unless that is also enshrined in the Constitution?
The phrasing of the Second Amendment is ambiguous too
When I did PolSci at uni - we were taught that the wording of the Constitution was DELIBERATELY ambiguous in many places to allow both for varying interpretation with time, AND to futureproof" it a little. We were ALSO taught that yes, this was one of the legendary "checks and balances" to ensure that the people of the United States had the final veto literally in their hands against a despotic government OF THEIR OWN....JUST as they had just formed the armed Minutemen to defend themselves against the army of the despotic English colonial rule of the 13 Colonies.
This Amendment was to ALLOW the Americans to rise by force of arms against their own government should that government EVER abrogate any of the other provisions of the Constitution. it's a veto in the hands of the PEOPLE, just like the Supreme Court was given a veto by judging Executive or Congressional actions UnConstitutional or illegal.
Yeah, two events which were massive news and everyone was pretty shocked at them. They were rare. I believe that he Cumbria shootings doubled the annual death rate from guns. We have gun crime, of course, but it's nowhere near the level we hear from America; since we don't live there we get a watered down version of it. I'd imagine we don't get to hear about most killings from guns in America.
We hear about school shootings in America weekly it seems.
You don't hear of every gun murder. Most are gang-related and/or not random. You also don't hear of the probably tens of millions of people who safely own and possibly use guns.
We don't have school shootings weekly, either. That's an extreme exaggeration.
Our gun crime is a problem. Crime period is a problem. Taking away guns would not solve it.
I think the news networks portray the negative. That's what sells. They don't show that guns are used properly and safely probably most of the time.
Yeah, two events which were massive news and everyone was pretty shocked at them. They were rare. I believe that he Cumbria shootings doubled the annual death rate from guns. We have gun crime, of course, but it's nowhere near the level we hear from America; since we don't live there we get a watered down version of it. I'd imagine we don't get to hear about most killings from guns in America.
We hear about school shootings in America weekly it seems.
We knife ours. Serial killers and mass murderers will make headlines nationally and internationally, it's the way of things.
We knife ours. Serial killers and mass murderers will make headlines nationally and internationally, it's the way of things.
Knife crime might be an issue here, yes, but there's still many laws in place to try and combat that; it's just much harder. Being shot will kill instantly in many cases, whereas being stabbed you have a much better chance of survival.
Hand guns are not going to deter someone carpet bombing a country.
Tell that to the NVA and the Viet Cong.....there, the handguns won! Carpet-bombing is not a foolproof, or even a good answer - hence the development in the last 30 years of precision guided weapons!
You don't hear of every gun murder. Most are gang-related and/or not random. You also don't hear of the probably tens of millions of people who safely own and possibly use guns.
We don't have school shootings weekly, either. That's an extreme exaggeration.
Our gun crime is a problem. Crime period is a problem. Taking away guns would not solve it.
I think the news networks portray the negative. That's what sells. They don't show that guns are used properly and safely probably most of the time.
We hear regularly of school shootings here but it's not always america, that is an international problem.
It is true to say that parts of America are very dangerous indeed, inner cities, high drug abuse, gangs, much the same as we have some areas, inner cities with drug abuse and gangs that are dangerous.
I don't know the exact geography and stats but lets say each state has the equivalent population of the UK (could be out on that), then it's a wonder we don't hear of many more spree killers, serial killers etc. from the USA. 50 odd x more.
Yeah, it's a weird constitutional thing - doesn't make much sense, because guns now are so much more powerful than they were then, and hardly anyone needs them for farming/hunting reasons, but for some reason a lot of Americans are very attached to their guns. It's hard (!) not to talk about the phallic significance - like huge cars, there's a connection between "macho-ness" and guns.
Guns don't kill people, people do - WITH GUNS. Honestly, that's the most facile argument in the debate, and people still say it like it means something. What next, "nukes don't kill people; people do"?
It's not a weird constitutional thing. I am a fully paid up member of the lentil-munching, sandal-wearing, knit-your-own yogurt liberal PC Brigade and should I ever decide to move back to the USA, I will have a couple guns. I been trained to use a rifle and I'm not too bad of a shot.
I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed because I don't want any of the other 9 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights repealed. I'd like to see tighter restrictions (open and concealed carry--WTF?) and assault rifles have no place in civilian hands. However, as Charlton Heston said, "from my cold, dead, hands."
I don't have nor do I want a penis, so my attitude toward guns is not Freudian.
I can totally see how possessing a handgun would protect you against governments with stealth bombers, tanks and aircraft carriers. And a foreign professional army canceling an invasion because of some fat rednecks with guns? Yeah, that'll happen for sure. Who would want to invade America anyway?
We don't have the same genre, for want of a better word, of school murders in the UK, though. British schoolkids get angry, frustrated and alienated just like teenagers everywhere but they don't murder their teachers and classmates in the way that American schoolkids do. There must be a deeper reason for this than the availability of guns, because British teenagers just don't go around killing at random.
Comments
But, is that chicken and egg syndrome?
Maybe the strict laws are as a result of the highest gun crime and its going to take many years for any strict law to take noticeable affect!
I'm not that knowledgeable on US law but its certainly viable!
It doesn't mean that strict gun laws are useless!
THE BRITISH! The British are coming!
I think American gun laws are slightly silly, but hey... if they want to keep them legal despite something like 30,000 people per year being killed with a gun then I guess it's up to them.
We've had two multiple killers with guns of our own this year alone. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if someone had a gun to take down Bird./Moat.
I actually don't want liberal gun laws but we're hardly in a position to judge.
Are you sure about that?
1) It's a constitutional right.
2) Personally, I own guns to protect my family.
3) Tightening gun laws don't have anything to do with legal, law abiding citizens, purchasing guns. To buy a gun you have to go through background checks. Criminals don't do this, they buy a one illegally off the street. Me disarming means I don't have a gun, but the criminal still does. Almost everyone I know owns a gun, none of them have been involved in 'horrible shootings'.
Contrary to popular belief, you can't just walk into a store and buy a gun.
But on the flipside you have to ask how many more multiple killers we might have had if guns were much more prevalent in this country.
We have strict gun laws so a higher number of people are killed with knives.
It's not the weapon that needs addressing but the psyche of people who would happily use violence with a gun or knife against another person.
Yeah, two events which were massive news and everyone was pretty shocked at them. They were rare. I believe that he Cumbria shootings doubled the annual death rate from guns. We have gun crime, of course, but it's nowhere near the level we hear from America; since we don't live there we get a watered down version of it. I'd imagine we don't get to hear about most killings from guns in America.
We hear about school shootings in America weekly it seems.
While we're at it, let's ban all the materials that can be used to make a bomb. Let's ban anything that can be used as poison as well. Let's ban all guns, knives, and bullets. Heck, a sharp pencil can poke an eye out.
Honestly, I'm not totally against gun control, but where does it end? The government has the duty to protect us, but we shouldn't have to surrender all freedoms to be protected by a government that can turn on us.
I wouldn't say that Americans are afraid of government. Rather, we probably all have a little bit of Thomas Jefferson in us in that we want the right to govern ourselves to an extent. Owning a gun is part of that for some people. If the government has weapons and the people do not, it's much harder to prevent the government from gaining more power.
Does that mean that taking up arms against the government is okay? In most cases, no. It should be the last resort. However, we should have the freedom to defend ourselves from criminals and governments. Assassinating a politician is not okay, though. We do have a democratic system and hopefully it works so that our voices are heard. Anyone who assassinates a politician (unless he was Hitler, but that's different) is a lunatic, not a hero.
The Second Amendment still applies today. We still have a right to own guns. However, it seems like it was previously put in there because if Americans had not had guns, then King George III could have done whatever he wanted to us. The founding fathers wanted to protect government from becoming too powerful in the future.
They did...
Throughout the early '30s there were frequent gunfights between Communists and SA gunmen; during his whirlwind electioneering tour at the end of 1932, Hitler's cavalcade was sniped at as it crossed into "Red" Saxony.
In 1942 the first large roundup of Jews in Berlin - the national capital retained a LARGE Jewish population until late in the war because of their vital role in Germany's munition industry - was resisted with violence and firearms :eek: And rather unexpected it was too! goebbels ranted about the nerve of them doing so in his Diary.
There are two aspects to this...
1/ Firearms ownership in Hitler's Germany was HUGE, I've seen it estimated at something like 45% of all households possessed one or more guns! :eek: Sporting rifles, personal protection weapons, WWI bring-backs...in fact, firearms were SO widespread that the Nazis were able to use the forced removal of guns from Jews as their pretext for Krsytallnacht...
2. There actually was no 100% brainwashing of the German people. The Nazis tried - and tried hard - but didn't manage it. for example - despite all the many times it was made compulsory, membership of boys in the Hitler Youth was never more than 65% nationwide at ANY point.
What the Nazis DID have however was 100% control of ALL law enforcement agencies and bodies, and an informer-based law-enforcement system - the pattern for East Germany's Stasi later....and of course 100% control of ALL the armed forces of the state. Except in very local and specific circumstances - both armed revolt and the ability to organise an armed revolt were impossible.
When I did PolSci at uni - we were taught that the wording of the Constitution was DELIBERATELY ambiguous in many places to allow both for varying interpretation with time, AND to futureproof" it a little. We were ALSO taught that yes, this was one of the legendary "checks and balances" to ensure that the people of the United States had the final veto literally in their hands against a despotic government OF THEIR OWN....JUST as they had just formed the armed Minutemen to defend themselves against the army of the despotic English colonial rule of the 13 Colonies.
This Amendment was to ALLOW the Americans to rise by force of arms against their own government should that government EVER abrogate any of the other provisions of the Constitution. it's a veto in the hands of the PEOPLE, just like the Supreme Court was given a veto by judging Executive or Congressional actions UnConstitutional or illegal.
Our heartless violent thugs tend to go for the more easily available knife.
You don't hear of every gun murder. Most are gang-related and/or not random. You also don't hear of the probably tens of millions of people who safely own and possibly use guns.
We don't have school shootings weekly, either. That's an extreme exaggeration.
Our gun crime is a problem. Crime period is a problem. Taking away guns would not solve it.
I think the news networks portray the negative. That's what sells. They don't show that guns are used properly and safely probably most of the time.
We knife ours. Serial killers and mass murderers will make headlines nationally and internationally, it's the way of things.
I'm sure the nukes, warships and planes are the biggest deterrent. Hand guns are not going to deter someone carpet bombing a country.
Knife crime might be an issue here, yes, but there's still many laws in place to try and combat that; it's just much harder. Being shot will kill instantly in many cases, whereas being stabbed you have a much better chance of survival.
Tell that to the NVA and the Viet Cong.....there, the handguns won! Carpet-bombing is not a foolproof, or even a good answer - hence the development in the last 30 years of precision guided weapons!
Don't be stupid.
We hear regularly of school shootings here but it's not always america, that is an international problem.
It is true to say that parts of America are very dangerous indeed, inner cities, high drug abuse, gangs, much the same as we have some areas, inner cities with drug abuse and gangs that are dangerous.
I don't know the exact geography and stats but lets say each state has the equivalent population of the UK (could be out on that), then it's a wonder we don't hear of many more spree killers, serial killers etc. from the USA. 50 odd x more.
I've never felt unsafe when visiting America.
It's not a weird constitutional thing. I am a fully paid up member of the lentil-munching, sandal-wearing, knit-your-own yogurt liberal PC Brigade and should I ever decide to move back to the USA, I will have a couple guns. I been trained to use a rifle and I'm not too bad of a shot.
I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed because I don't want any of the other 9 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights repealed. I'd like to see tighter restrictions (open and concealed carry--WTF?) and assault rifles have no place in civilian hands. However, as Charlton Heston said, "from my cold, dead, hands."
I don't have nor do I want a penis, so my attitude toward guns is not Freudian.
But if you had, you wouldn't appreciate someone else trying to cut it off!
We don't have the same genre, for want of a better word, of school murders in the UK, though. British schoolkids get angry, frustrated and alienated just like teenagers everywhere but they don't murder their teachers and classmates in the way that American schoolkids do. There must be a deeper reason for this than the availability of guns, because British teenagers just don't go around killing at random.
Several hundred thousand Hispanic illegals every year....!:p