2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is largely regarded (here in the US) as a deterrent (symbolic or not) to government exceeding it's meets and bounds.

There are hundreds of gun control laws on the books here and with tragedies such as Columbine and the VT incidents, multiple of those were broken by the perpetrators.

The most dangerous places here are airports and schools as any bad guy knows these are virtual killing fields since law-abiding citizens are unarmed sheeple in those places.

It isn't surprising people from other places fail to grasp this concept as some are subjects (vs. citizens) of their governments while others derive their origins as a penal colony where lawless individuals were transported. We only had one of those (Georgia) here in the US.

IMHO, people pursuing utopia fail to comprehend their direct conflict with one of the basic tenets of evolution, survival of the fittest.
 
DC said:
sounds more like survival of the best aim.
Click to expand...

You've hit upon (no pun intended) the basis for the origin of our National Rifle Association (NRA) in 1873. Founded by retired Union army brass as the basis to teach civilian marksmanship after the poor field performance (in that area) by the union forces during the War between the States.

Jealousy begets violence.
Religion(s) begets violence.

You have to eliminate those two in order to begin any semblance of peace on this planet.
 
A bunch of off topic and bickering posts moved to AAH. In truth, there's a lot more that could have been moved, but we'll let it stand for now. Not promising it won't be moved later.

Cut out the bickering and the personal attacks, please, and try to stay reasonably on-topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Telaynay's G'son said:
You've hit upon (no pun intended) the basis for the origin of our National Rifle Association (NRA) in 1873. Founded by retired Union army brass as the basis to teach civilian marksmanship after the poor field performance (in that area) by the union forces during the War between the States.

Jealousy begets violence.
Religion(s) begets violence.

You have to eliminate those two in order to begin any semblance of peace on this planet.
Click to expand...

Interesting point of view :)
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Your city has more than 2.5x the homicide rate of my city. Citizens being armed in my city is probably a good reason why.

"Nottingham also had the highest murder rate - with 5.21 crimes for every 100,000 population"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5006852.stm

Henderson, NV -- only 2 for every 100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Oh good grief, you're kidding. You must be. That's such an inane statement that you would have given serious pause to if you had looked into the stats for Nottingham.

Now, I'm not sure if you know this, but Nottingham is the city in the UK with the highest amount of firearms per person, and the highest gun crime rate in the UK!

Furthermore, your city has recorded child poverty to be 6.4%. Nottingham has 62%. Nearly ten times as much poverty and you think your GUNS make you safer?
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Gun crime, yes. Violent assaults, no. Homocides, depends. North Dakota, New Hampshire, and Utah all have lower homocide rates than the U.K. Many states are at the same homocide level, or slightly above the U.K. level. Maine, Vermont, Montana, Idaho all have near U.K. level homocide levels. But those states don't allow criminals to terrorize its citizens like the U.K. does. If individual gun rights were the problem, we'd see a random distribution of homocides in the U.S. But they're not, they're concentrated in certain areas. We can conclude that individual gun ownership is not the problem.
Click to expand...

UNLoVedRebel, I still take issue with your data selection for comparison to the UK. In a series of posts which have been split between this thread, the AAH forum, and a new thread in the Non-USA & General Politics forum, I accused you of using cherry-picked data to support the claim in your opening post that easing of restrictions on gun ownership in the UK would result in fewer murders. My actual post remains in this thread (for the time being, at least) as post #139.

In posts by you and drkitten that have been included in the new thread about differences between nations and the American states, it was explained that the American states have sufficient autonomy to set their own laws. While I appreciate the education, I still don't see how presenting a few states which have murder rates which compare favourably to the whole of the UK supports your claim. Surely, the fact that a great variation in murder rates exists across states which share similar gun ownership laws only undermines your argument about the benefits of widespread gun ownership.
 
Personally, I don't really like either side of this argument. The idea that guns prevent violence seems just as stupid as the idea that the lack of guns prevent violence. Either someone is making a hasty generalization fallacy or someone is affirming the consequent, imo.

lionking said:
You're just trolling now. Melbourne has 4 million people and there is not a street I wouldn't happily and safely walk down unarmed. Can you name a city of the same size in the USA where you would do this?
Click to expand...

You are aware that in most major US cities you can't carry a gun with you anyways, right? Quite a few major cities had bans on the ownership of handguns until today. And even then I don't think they'll be getting the right to carry that gun around with them anytime soon.

lionking said:
I still see nobody has attempted to counter this point on page one.
Click to expand...

I'm unfamiliar with Australian laws. Was a limit on the ownership of firearms the only law enacted to counter violent crime? Was it followed up by police crackdowns on illegal gun owners? Has the overall rate of violent crimes dropped or just those involving guns?
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
I'm unfamiliar with Australian laws. Was a limit on the ownership of firearms the only law enacted to counter violent crime? Was it followed up by police crackdowns on illegal gun owners? Has the overall rate of violent crimes dropped or just those involving guns?
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the stats on other crimes (before vs. after) such as assault & battery, robbery, burgulary, crime against elders and even "single" murders rather than the "multiple" murder notion.
 
I'm not sure why that woud be relevant. The OP (which it has been admitted was merely a troll) was referring to a multiple spree killing. The suggestion was that having a lot of other people firing at God knows what in Whitehaven than morning would have improved the situation. Or maybe have stopped Bird from beginning his rampage.

This hasn't been substantiated in the slightest. Multiple spree killings are far commoner in the USA than in Britain, and armed passers-by do not have a good record in prevening or halting them.

Without guns, violent people will still try to find a way to be violent. Maybe some potential gun violence will appear as non-firearms violence. However, I don't think overall crime statistics are in the USA's favour nonetheless. Taking the worst hell-hole in England and comparing it to (what seems to be) a pleasant US town, is ridiculous. It's not that surprising that the very worst place in Britain for gun violence is worse than some places in the USA.

Using the "but I bet other crimes are higher" as an excuse for clinging to the big boys' cap guns is pretty desperate.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not sure why that woud be relevant. The OP (which it has been admitted was merely a troll) was referring to a multiple spree killing. The suggestion was that having a lot of other people firing at God knows what in Whitehaven than morning would have improved the situation. Or maybe have stopped Bird from beginning his rampage.

We'll never know the answer to that specific situation.

This hasn't been substantiated in the slightest. Multiple spree killings are far commoner in the USA than in Britain, and armed passers-by do not have a good record in prevening or halting them.

Is this speculation (on your part) or do you have facts to substantiate these assertions?

Without guns, violent people will still try to find a way to be violent. Maybe some potential gun violence will appear as non-firearms violence. However, I don't think overall crime statistics are in the USA's favour nonetheless. Taking the worst hell-hole in England and comparing it to (what seems to be) a pleasant US town, is ridiculous. It's not that surprising that the very worst place in Britain for gun violence is worse than some places in the USA.

Using the "but I bet other crimes are higher" as an excuse for clinging to the big boys' cap guns is pretty desperate.

It's called looking at the big picture.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

One thing is for sure, those people in the morgue (as referenced in the OP) never had the chance for "other options" that at least might have given them the means for survival.

If you're content to be among the slaughtered so be it. Perhaps, that may explain part of the reasoning why some of my ancestors left Wales ~390 years ago headed for the US.
 
Telaynay's G'son said:
...

The most dangerous places here are airports and schools as any bad guy knows these are virtual killing fields since law-abiding citizens are unarmed sheeple in those places.

It isn't surprising people from other places fail to grasp this concept as some are subjects (vs. citizens) of their governments while others derive their origins as a penal colony where lawless individuals were transported. We only had one of those (Georgia) here in the US.

IMHO, people pursuing utopia fail to comprehend their direct conflict with one of the basic tenets of evolution, survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...

How do airports and schools contribute to the survival of the fittest?

Telaynay's G'son said:
One thing is for sure, those people in the morgue (as referenced in the OP) never had the chance for "other options" that at least might have given them the means for survival.

If you're content to be among the slaughtered so be it. Perhaps, that may explain part of the reasoning why some of my ancestors left Wales ~390 years ago headed for the US.
Click to expand...

It's more likely to have been because of economic pressures and because they wanted the freedom to practice their religion.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
How do airports and schools contribute to the survival of the fittest?

Reading my original comments, it would appear they could well be detrimental to such as your personal safety is in the hands of government agencies and that is a frightening thought.



It's more likely to have been because they wanted the freedom to practice their religion.

Actually, the first one was a Congregationalist minister that brought his profession with him from GB to Massachuetts.
Click to expand...

I suspect many of those immigrating to north america did so to carve a better life based upon individual effort and not so much birthmark. In doing so they apparently developed a disdain for government doing all of their thinking for them. I believe it was settled during a little disagreement during ~1775-1883.
 
As far as I'm concerned, nothing typed inside a quote box exists. Learn to use the quote function properly.

And don't demand the repetition of facts that have been referenced ad nauseam.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
As far as I'm concerned, nothing typed inside a quote box exists. Learn to use the quote function properly.

And don't demand the repetition of facts that have been referenced ad nauseam.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

By all means, please allow me to clear away all those pesky trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom