Recommended Posts
Stumpy 284
My point is that since - by your own admission, gun control laws and by inference, the lack of them, make no difference to crime rates, then the decision whether they should exist or not becomes one of culture.
Despite the viewpoint i have on here, i fully support the right of Americans to bear arms (or arm bears or whatever
) since it seems to be a cornerstone of your culture and a big, visible sign of the rights you have. Any state or federal government ruling to remove that goes against your cultural principles as i understand it.
Conversely in my country of origin - the UK - if you carry a gun on the street you are likely to get shot by SO19 or whoever. before the gun ban, guess what, you would still have been shot. There was very little argument against the gun ban in the UK because it was never an explicit, from birth onwards i must be able to have a gun kind of thing, and the VAST majority of people never really gave a shit either way, and virtually no-one feels or felt the need to have one for self defence. (Those that did have them, target rifle shooters and shotgun owners for sport/ hunting - still do. The one group i feel genuinely sorry for is the target handgun guys, but that is so vanishingly small i find it difficult to get that upset about it)
In the UK i was far more bothered about the hunting ban (again - not because i particularly agree with hunting but because its a sign of the government sticking their nose in to something they really don't understand at an emotive level), the increasingly ludicrous taxes, speed cameras etc etc etc which are all symbols of eroding freedoms that mean far more to most brits than someone banning something they never really had anyway.
One other point:
The emotive "law abiding gun owner" thing you keep trotting out is a real wind up. I am sure the majority of gun owners are law abiding - but some of them will still go nuts at some point and shoot up a school or whatever. Unless you can guarantee that every "law abiing gun owner" will be law abiding for their entire life then the term is worthless. And as far as i know the future-crime department isn't yet real!!
Edited for clarity
Despite the viewpoint i have on here, i fully support the right of Americans to bear arms (or arm bears or whatever
) since it seems to be a cornerstone of your culture and a big, visible sign of the rights you have. Any state or federal government ruling to remove that goes against your cultural principles as i understand it.
Conversely in my country of origin - the UK - if you carry a gun on the street you are likely to get shot by SO19 or whoever. before the gun ban, guess what, you would still have been shot. There was very little argument against the gun ban in the UK because it was never an explicit, from birth onwards i must be able to have a gun kind of thing, and the VAST majority of people never really gave a shit either way, and virtually no-one feels or felt the need to have one for self defence. (Those that did have them, target rifle shooters and shotgun owners for sport/ hunting - still do. The one group i feel genuinely sorry for is the target handgun guys, but that is so vanishingly small i find it difficult to get that upset about it)
In the UK i was far more bothered about the hunting ban (again - not because i particularly agree with hunting but because its a sign of the government sticking their nose in to something they really don't understand at an emotive level), the increasingly ludicrous taxes, speed cameras etc etc etc which are all symbols of eroding freedoms that mean far more to most brits than someone banning something they never really had anyway.
One other point:
The emotive "law abiding gun owner" thing you keep trotting out is a real wind up. I am sure the majority of gun owners are law abiding - but some of them will still go nuts at some point and shoot up a school or whatever. Unless you can guarantee that every "law abiing gun owner" will be law abiding for their entire life then the term is worthless. And as far as i know the future-crime department isn't yet real!!
Edited for clarity
Never try to eat more than you can lift
JohnRich 4
QuoteUnless you can guarantee that every "law abiing gun owner" will be law abiding for their entire life then the term is worthless.
Do you think that everyone should be denied gun ownership because a few people will misuse them sometime in the future?
Because if you adopt that philosophy, then a whole host of things could be treated similarly. For example, when we issue driver licenses to 16-year-olds, there's no way of knowing which ones will turn into drunk drivers in the future.
My solution is to allow everyone the freedom, with the clear message that they are expected to be responsible with it, and if they misuse that freedom, then strong punishments will ensue. I find that preferable to an up-front ban that denies the freedom to everyone, by assuming that they are all potential criminals, regardless of their demonstrated degree of personal responsibility. Freedom demands it.
Or simply put since people are being deliberately obtuse (and fucking boring) in this thread - if taking away guns doesn't increase or decrease crime, it shouldn't be done.
ADD: the sunset clause in the US "Assualt Weapons" Ban proved to be a well written clause. After 10 years of absolutely no change, it was obvious that the ban wasn't needed and it was allowed to expire.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites