I am reminded of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine".....
Good source for your information. From the same guy that brought us the "truth" of 9/11. You might want to start a thread on Moore, or for that matter on Bowling for Columbine. It would stray way off topic for here, but Moore likes to edit, quote out of context, and generally slant his "documentaries" to the point that if Goebbels had
him instead of Leni Riefenstahl, we'd all be singing Deutschland Uber Alles right now,
Says you. Further down in your post you agree that regulation is a good idea.
So, you're either projecting...or confused.
Regulation that is clear, reasonable, and the government can show both a compelling interest for the regulation and that it is the
only way to remedy that compelling interest. Something
our court system requires before interference with a Constitutional right. There have been pages of posts explaining this in detail on this forum.
Again, my definition of regulation is not a synonym for confiscation.
I suppose we have different attitudes towards law enforcement.
In "Bowling for Columbine" some Michigan militia are interviewed and one states that it is every americans duty to look out for themselves, that the police are just the middle man so why wait for them to come and do what you should be doing yourself.
Moore probably interviewed dozens of reasonable, prudent people before he found just the right ones who looked kooky enough for his purpose. It's been a while since I saw this piece of propaganda so I don't remember that clip specifically (I just remember the heavy edit he did on Charlton Heston), but as to the police providing protection, the cops themselves have a saying, "When seconds counts, we're only minutes away". It's not because the cops don't want to help, it's just that in all likelihood they're not going to be there when you really need them. I know, I was a cop, and come from a family of cops that go back 3 generations.
In the final analysis, there is only
one person responsible for your safety, and the safety of your loved ones. You see him every morning when you shave.
If you want to entrust your safety (and your family's) to someone else that's your decision. In all probability you're only going to need them once, anyway.
Sheep never worry about the wolves, that's the responsibility of sheepdogs. They just have to hope that the sheepdog isn't busy somewhere else when the wolves come calling.
Some americans seem to have very little faith in their own police, and I can kinda understand that. I have seen police in action in circumstances where they should have been sympathetic and helpful but instead were aggressive, probably because they have to consider their own personal protection at all times.
I have no problem talking with a police officer on the streets of the UK. And yes, they do 'walk the beat' which does give them the chance to engage with the community they serve.
Maybe you don't have that in the US.
Where appropriate, they walk a beat here too, and if the US was the size of a postage stamp they could all walk a beat. But I notice it doesn't stop the bad guys in your country from robbing and committing acts of violence anymore than here (less actually). Probably because the bad guys get to choose the when, and often the where, and that means the cops aren't going to be around when they go to work.
Fear of crime is good business. Make those who are fearful believe that they can only depend upon themselves. Profit.
I'm not the one living in fear. At least not from the criminals. I fear the weak of spirit who expect me to have to give up my ability to defend myself based on their own cowardice and lack of moral conviction. The ones who are more than willing to second their responsibility to others they feel more suited to the task.
Your side seems to be the ones who live in fear of those "scary bangy things" that "no decent person would want to own".
I have nothing in common with people who buy in to the ******** exhibited by that school. Similar cases were held up for ridicule in "bowling for columbine". My favourite was the company that wanted to offer schools security advice, which included advice on dress codes so kids couldn't bring weapons into school, illustrated by a kid armed to the gills and including a shotgun stuffed down the leg of his trousers which would have made it impossible for him to walk.
You probably have a lot more in common with them than you'd like to admit, even to yourself.
"Gun Free Zones", mandatory insurance for criminal use, total registration and licensing on a may issue basis (show need). Any of those sound like you?
Well all I'm seeing is the fruits of LaPierre's labour. The NRA has the reputation (warranted or not) of kneejerk reactions against any form of restriction on gun ownership. Even, apparently, restrictions you yourself would condone.
Apparently you choose to view things through Michael Moore's lens. That explains why.
The NRA has also provides the largest gun safety program in the US, and an NRA instructor's certification has long been sought after by every professional who teaches gun safety.
They have no problem with reasonable regulation, such as the NFA, background checks and preventing felons from possessing firearms. They have always had a problem (as do I) with knee jerk bans and legislation that will do nothing save infringe upon the rights of lawful citizens, who, although I'm sure you don't believe it, seldom commit acts of violence.
So, what is stopping them?
Or are you proposing a conspiracy here? Is there a belief that the government isn't applying existing laws because in truth all they want to do is impose new regulation(confiscation!)
You mention several times a motive for fear mongering, but you don't seem to realize that the gun industry didn't flood the airwaves with calls that the crazies were out of control, murdering children left and right (at least leaving that impression in the minds of the viewing audience). They took an aberration (albeit a tragic one) blew it out of proportion. Having Diane Sawyer say, "The event was tragic, but it's so rare that its less likely than getting hit by lightning" doesn't sell. Claiming the sky is falling does.
Likewise, power is a greater motivator than profit. Every time a tragedy takes place it is an opportunity for the politicians to gather more power. In Rahm Emmanuel's words, "never let a tragedy go to waste".
But once the new law is in place, the government has expanded, and the new budgets determined, there doesn't seem to be much incentive to actually get much done.
Look at the Brady Bill. It was billed as "putting teeth into the GCA of 1968". Now they are saying on one hand that it wasn't strong enough, and on the other that they can't be bothered with "paper chases".
Those "paper chases" could have taken thousands of convicted felons off the street
before they had a chance to commit another crime.
Here we are.
You don't have a problem with this requirement, but apparently many others do, evidenced by the simple fact that no such requirement exists.
I suspect the NRA disagree with you also.
How so? The NRA stands to gain from gun safety classes. Who do you think is the largest provider in the country for this training?
Those of lesser means are always denied the ability to exercise the right to bear arms, unless those arms are provided free of charge.
The fact that there is a monetary cost involved with the 2A is an infringement of that right.
The fact that this infringement already exists makes it possible to further increase that infringement for the greater good of society.
The poor ( not the destitute, but those of limited means) can usually afford a one time payment for a firearm. Not all firearms are $1200 Kimber Raptors.
But a monthly fee for owning a firearm, even if as modest as you claim (although I have seen no justification that a million dollar policy would come cheap), is more than many could afford.
And it still leaves open the question of compelling interest. You don't have a right to an automobile, you
do have a right to a firearm.
Which begs the question of why your first paragraph was dripping with imagined fear of crime.
I don't think the crime rate in the UK is imagined. At least if it is then the delusion is shared by CIVITAS, and your own government, who publish a report on it every year. You are much more likely to be mugged in the Uk than to be injured or killed by an accidental firearm discharge in the US.
Right. Badly thought out programs to relieve parents of their responsibilities.
You like statistics chuck, how many assaults on children are carried out by strangers as opposed to members or friends of family?
So parents should be responsible for their children on the one hand, but not responsible for their safety on the other? I thought you were the one willing to leave safety issues up to the police.
I will agree, though, I don't have that much faith in many of these programs, either.
Most children who are molested, are preyed upon by a family friend or relative. i don't see how that is germane to the topic of this thread, unless you are trying to make the case for "Uncle Fred" insurance.
So, it doesn't cover you for the damage you may cause to a third party while drunk driving then? I'm confused.
Not in all states. Some insurance companies won't cover a drunk driver, look up policies and rates on the internet.
In fairness, however most do, through "no fault"policies. The theory is that the driver does not intend to injure another person. I know of no policy that covers intentional harm.
And that is exactly what the NY legislation is intended for.
Does that clear up the confusion? Negligence and/or irresponsible behavior resulting in harm vs behavior
intended to harm.
In response to the equally bizarre notion that Americans should be required to purchase insurance for anticipated criminal activity.
Which, again, is implicit in the NY legislation.
