2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue
- Thread starter Baylor
- Start date
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Poor choice of words on my part. I apologize.
Thanks for the clarification.
Why not? I think the issue, when it comes to spree killings etc. is more an issue of ammo capacity than rate-of-fire.
Yeah. These "assault rifles" really aren't practical weapons.
They're definitely not needed for either one. There are better weapons for both applications.
I don't really think it's even about them being semi-automatic. (There are a lot of other semiautomatic weapons in regular use, such as .22 rifles used for "critter control".) I think it's just that they look cool, and are, I assume, somewhat fun to shoot.
Yep. Horrible choice for hunting.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So which murders would be prevented if the UK had changed the gun laws? After all the current restrictions on firearms can be traced back to Dunblaine. And frankly I doubt things would have ended differently if the gun laws were different because the social view towards guns in the UK.
Now, my personal view towards your original question is: "Considerably fewer than in places that have unrestricted gun control". We are a nation where each and every shooting, or knife related murder is still shocking enough to warrant front page media coverage. Two unfortunate but isolated incidents have occured close to each other, and have shocked the nation. But the question we are asking is not "Where can I get me a gun to go shoot more people", it is "why did these people have guns? Do we need tighter controls." And even that is secondary to "was anybody able to spot the signs of this and do something about it earlier?"
Can you imagine, just for a second, the damage such people might have caused if they had been legally able to own more guns? I mean, seriously? And how many road rage incidents would tip over the edge if one or more parties had a gun for self defence?
Now, my personal view towards your original question is: "Considerably fewer than in places that have unrestricted gun control". We are a nation where each and every shooting, or knife related murder is still shocking enough to warrant front page media coverage. Two unfortunate but isolated incidents have occured close to each other, and have shocked the nation. But the question we are asking is not "Where can I get me a gun to go shoot more people", it is "why did these people have guns? Do we need tighter controls." And even that is secondary to "was anybody able to spot the signs of this and do something about it earlier?"
Can you imagine, just for a second, the damage such people might have caused if they had been legally able to own more guns? I mean, seriously? And how many road rage incidents would tip over the edge if one or more parties had a gun for self defence?
Ahhhh but I've heard it said that '...an armed society is a polite society.'
After all, who wouldn't be polite if being impolite might carry a death sentence?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So... MOST VIOLENT NATION and you want us all to HAVE GUNS. Now, you argue that well armed people would be better placed to defend themselves against all the violent thugs WHO OWN GUNS.
Look, you appear to be the sort of person who likes guns. Good for you. Well done. We have people like that over here. But we have a lot more people who dislike guns, dislike what guns are for, and what they do, and would rather work towards the kind of world where nobody needs guns. We might never get there, but hey, we thought that about ending slavery too. Not having guns does not make you a sitting duck, and does not make us helpless. As a nation we have struggled to reduce gun crime in several stages, first by banning almost all handguns and fire arms (the notable exception being shotguns and some sporting weapons which had tighter controls put in place) in a blanket amnesty that was almost universally supported. This was because a gentleman walked into Dunblaine school and shot lots of people. (You have no idea how tempting it is right now to make a bad taste joke about a compairable event in the US, but it would be bad taste even for me. Damn you moral high horse holier than thou attitude of mine! Damn you!) The figures dropped. They spiked again when some idiots learned to ream the barrels of replica handguns. One high profile incident featuring the sibling of a member of a rap group later, (the So Solid Crew? I dunno) and replica handguns are better controlled. By 2008 (if I remember rightly) a nice bell curve is being formed.
When crime statistics are released in the final third of the Labour Government, (the one just gone), there is a spike in Gun Crime and Knife crime figures. Mostly Knife Crimes. Because the format of Crime Stastics were changed. Yes, it was political suicide to change the way statistics are presented to make them seem worse. But never mind. The key statistic was... Knives were the big problem. Knives still are the big problem. You can ban guns, limit their use, impose laws. There will always be black market guns.
But you can't ban knives. Every kitchen needs them. Not wants, not safer with, needs them. The truth is as tragic as the last few shootings have been, they are nothing compared to a much larger, and much more mundane problem, that again, guns wont really help with and could (in my humble opinion) make things worse.
Oh, and I have great oral health thanks to free healthcare paid for by affordable taxes. And atleast if I am shot I know the hospital will treat me regardless of what I can afford. (Miaow).
Rolfe
Adult human female
Tomtomkent wins the internet.
And welcome to the forum!
(By the way, it's "Dunblane". Andy Murray would be cross. And although that incident led to the ban on handguns, there was a previous incident which led to restrictions on larger weapons - remember Hungerford?)
Rolfe.
And there I think you hit the nail on the head.
Ths US Second Amendment, however you dissect the grammar, is indisputably to do with the formation of a militia.
A modern militia - whether repelling a foreign invasion or rebelling against an evil gubmint - would look pretty damn stupid running around with rifles and handguns vs. tanks, helicopter gunships and fighter jets.
To bring the Second Amendment up-to-date would require all responsible citizens to get hold of tanks, SAMS and RPGs to say the very least. Yet these are the very kinds of weapons not allowed in the US. They're limited to the kinds of guns that the ol' revolutionary militia had available. D'oh.
The Second Amendment is archaic. But the USA got lumbered with the consequences and can't shake it off. It's too late. But they wish the same FSM-awful mess on others in a kind of sick, inverted schadenfreude.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
No, they don't. The OP was just trolling.
Yes I realise, and mentioned that very fact early on in the thread. But support for the Second Amendment among US citizens here on JREF is quite strong.
I don't think that is exactly true. From what I have read, here and elsewhere, the Americans who support their stance on guns really do not think it is a mess. They appear to think it is "freedom".
There is no point in presuming that is not an honest position: it quite clearly is. There is no point in the Americans presuming that those of us in the UK are being oppressed by a government which prevents us from having that freedom, either: people in the UK overwhelmingly support our gun laws. There is no point in trying to show that the american position is insane: or the british position is abject. We have surely had enough threads to show what the differences are and to demonstrate they are not amenable to reasoned argument.
If there is anything constructive to come out of a gun thread I have yet to see it. It is very interesting as a demonstration of the limits of "reasoned debate" and "evidence based opinion", however. To that extent I find it quite interesting on a sceptics board.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Support for the 2nd Amendment in the US, yes. A "wish" to see it exported to the UK, or elsewhere? Not so much.
Americans don't care about other countries. Even when we think about it enough to consider how our laws are better than yours, we assume you deserve it.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
WHAT? How dare you agree with me! I was spoiling for a fight.
Nah, I think we were talking past one another a bit. No harm no foul.
Already been discussed. See the split thread about state and nation definitions. Many American States enjoy the freedom to defend itself with guns and have a low homicide rate. And these state are diverse both culturally and politically. An extremely conservative state like UT and an extremely liberal state like VT both have low homicide rates and have the right to bear arms as granted in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We can conclude that the right to bear arms is not the reason for the high homicide rates in certain pockets of the U.S.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
He was there for me when Johnny Alpha died....
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Maybe then you could explain why Louisiana which is rated by the NRA as a strong 2nd Ammendment state is number 1 in the most per capita homicide rates in the US, and has been for 17 years
Last edited:
Non-sequitor or strawman. Whatever. NRA ratings are not an issue in this thread. Please don't start a 3rd split.
Last edited:
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Answer the question - you lied about the stats you quoted, both Brady and the NRA disagree with you, and thats the best you got?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I would be interested to know if the number of guns in the state have prevented crimes. I assume that when you use your legal gun to defend yourself from muggers, murderers or the like it is not counted as a murder, but is considered justified by the courts. Are they any statistics that suggest the number of these cases has increased in any state while the crime rate has dropped?
Oh, and that internet I won? I'll take the cash equivelant please. (Er, my humour is trollish or taken the wrong way at any point feel free to let me know. I try to make it obvious when my tongue is in cheek, but am fully aware that it is impossible to judge the tone of voice of of plain text, and I don't intend to cause offence if I can avoid it).