chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
You need to come to Biggleswade, and meet Tim.
2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue
- Thread starter Baylor
- Start date
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
We don't have a Second Amendment in Canada either but we get to have weapons and can even use them as long as we ask the fellow we're pointing it at if it's OK with them.
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm
We have a lot of guns here. I'd guess they have a lot of guns in the UK too in spite of no Second Amendment.
What is different is that we don't kill as many of our fellow citizens with them and it's probably just a coincidence:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
We can work our way up, though, if you'd like.
For once it's nice to see the UK at the bottom of the table!
Ha! Can't beat the colonials #27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
No, really, we don't.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Discussion about Buckfast split to: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179409
Posted By: Professor Yaffle
Rolfe
Adult human female
Actually, we have far fewer guns in Britain than in the USA. I remember from Bowling for Columbine that Canada has a high gun ownership, just not the same gun problems as the USA.
While there is good evidence (see Australia) that firearms restrictions reduce the number of incidents and deaths, culture and attitudes have a lot to do with it too. And of course the culture and attitudes influence what legislation is enacted, so it's hard to look at the issues separately.
I think so much of the trouble in the USA is directly related to the very immature attitudes - the ye-haw gun-totin mindset that's really just a childish fixation on toy guns which hasn't been put aside, like childish things should be. If you can have the guns but not the mindset, you may not encounter so much trouble. However, I think it's hard to have the guns without the mindset occurring in at least a proportion of people. And I note that even though Canada's firearm murder rate is less than a fifth of the US rate, it's still five times the UK rate. Which makes me feel I'd rather keep the restrictions, thanks.
Rolfe.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
I don't have a problem with that suggestion.
Perhaps, depending on the definition of "better". Regardless, my issue was with the suggestion that the reason he shot the police officer was because he had a gun. He obviously wouldn't have been able to shoot without the gun (or other projectile weapon), but that's a completely different issue from why he chose to fire on the officer in the first place. As I said, the gun was the "how", not the "why". Maybe he was just protecting his pith Amendment right of free disassociation (from litter).
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
There seems to be a very common attitude in the US mindset that you must protect yourself and your family. It's a manhood thing - "A real man looks after his family, keeps them safe." They seem almost obsessive about it, like it's something that's absolutely basic to life. Maybe it's a leftover from the frontier spirit or something.
And I don't even disagree with the attitude. It's just that it seems locked into an unhealthy obsession that "They" are out to get you, that criminals are paused at every window and door, every night, and only the thought of you having a gun keeps them away.
I said earlier I'd never seen a gun, which is true. I do have some experience with burglary. When I was about 12, our house was broken into and a few ornaments stolen. Total damage one lock, total value lost about £30. That's the only time I've been robbed in my whole life.
Point being, it's not exactly an urgent threat. Truth be told it was probably kids, and if somebody had been in bed at the time simply shouting "Oi You!" down the stairs would likely have sent them running.
The idea that I need to have a gun in my house to protect myself from this menace... to me it's rather like seeing a nation of people who walk around wearing hats with lightning conductors mounted on them, because after all it's your responsibility to make sure you aren't hit by lightning isn't it?
Because the gun laws affect the kinds of guns that you can have.
The laws that were passed after the Port Arthur massacre only affected semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which most Australians don't have, and many of those that did were farmers who could get an exemption because of it.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
IIRC it was a legal gun and the shooter had no previous criminal history.
We have TV advertisements here in the US that scream that belief at you. "They're bad, they're violent and they are everywhere just waiting to get you!" In fact if you believe the home security ads every middle class white women is in constant danger of some lunatic kicking in her front door.
So, if it hadn't been legal to own and carry a firearm, this guy probably wouldn't have had one, and wouldn't have got himself killed.
Rolfe
Adult human female
That's what I meant by "what a tragic waste of a life". Man loses it when challenged by cop over dropping litter. Not usually fatal. Man loses it when challenged by cop over dropping litter, with gun in sock, outcome, death. And serious injury for the cop, too.
And yet the premise of the OP is that we would want to be like this because it's somehow safer. All the evidence stacks up the other way.
Rolfe.
And yet the premise of the OP is that we would want to be like this because it's somehow safer. All the evidence stacks up the other way.
Rolfe.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
So, presumably, if the laws were repealed, the people that currently own other guns would buy semiautomatic ones, but the people who currently do not own guns would continue not owning guns?
Eh, as the story was presented, I'm not really fealing the "tragic" part.
That's because the premise of the OP is dumb.
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
A Man died. Any Man's death is a loss to the world.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I don't happen to subscribe to that philosophy.
And the cop had to live with having killed someone, essentially, for dropping litter.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Certain people only care about other people as long as they follow laws. Why, I have never understood.
There's that also, of course.
Unlike the OP I'm not scared as I go about my day that I feel the need to own a gun and I write this as someone who works in an obvious (and former) terrorist target.
What are you so frightened of that you need a gun? Do you not understand the risks? The chances of you being involved in a gun incident, even in the US, is exceptionally small while owning a gun increases other risks like accidental discharge in the home leading to a tragic death.
What are you so frightened of that you need a gun? Do you not understand the risks? The chances of you being involved in a gun incident, even in the US, is exceptionally small while owning a gun increases other risks like accidental discharge in the home leading to a tragic death.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
No. He had to kill someone who was trying to kill him. The littering is incidental.
Me neither. Who are these people of whom you speak?