If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Firstly, Katralla hasn't said anything offensive in this thread and I think it's unfortunate that her opinion on gun laws hasn't been respected - she's speaking from genunine experience and I think that needs to be acknowledged.
Secondly, some of the insults in this thread are unbelievable. 'Retard' and 'Downs syndrome' are not tolerable here on any level.
Thirdly, it would really help everyone if there was a lot more calm, and a lot more thought...generally across the board. The new people have caused a stir, but the overreaction from some people is actually as frustrating as some of the belittling of opinions.
It's time to let go of the 'clan resistance' and just consider these people, should they wish to stay, on an individual basis.
Just a final tip, when you start a thread, you don't necessarily have to 'own it' you can let the debate unfold and then come back and post your tuppence when the general views are clear. Picking up on people's every word can be quite full on and. Just something to think about. :chin:
The same can be said about when guns are legalized though. Typically, criminals are violent toward criminals, regardless of if their weapons are registered or not. You're free to feel comfortable in whichever environment you prefer, but I personally think it's unfair to debar one person a right because of another's discomfort with it.
I'll be fair and say that I did that I initiated the conflict with katralla in this particular thread. Her trolling us in other threads combined with the "how about" part of her post that came across as snarky to me, made me snap at her a bit. Then throw in her attitude earlier on when I was just trying to explain something to her and you kind of have a recipe for disaster. But when you're constantly being "put to the test" by people, it's hard to shrug off most things.
If your comment was not meant with a degree of snark to it, katralla, I apologize.
I wasn't trying to "own" the thread. If you check it out, Jessi was debating gun control with I'm With Stupid and MoK and the few times I interjected were very small things. I had asked people to define their platforms because it seems weird that everyone was coming up with the same standing. Then when I saw what happened, I politely informed everyone what my analysis was and I'm With Stupid and MoK contrasted that (which, by the way, I didn't mind and I fully enjoyed our exchange), to which the rest of my posting in this thread has been predicated on until the shitstorm. :x
Why should it be a 'right' to carry arms? It should be considered a privilege. As a US constitutional 'right', this harks way back to 1791, hardly historically/politically relevant for 2011.
I understand that you are in the mindset of always having had guns in your life because that is the environment that you have been brought up in and it is very hard to let that belief go (such as the US obsession for cruel and medically irrelevant infant circumcision; where are the 'rights' of the child in this? But most US fathers will continue to inflict a barbarous act on their own sons just because it was 'done to them'. What is 'fair' about that?) but, in my opinion, indiscriminate gun ownership does nothing for the aspirations of hope and peace.
Certainly, there have been shootings in the UK from time to time but NOTHING compares to the continual news feeds of such attacks in the US, usually on a far greater and deadly scale; to the extent where people are so used to them that the news barely makes it into the next day.
I'm sure it's cold comfort to those who have lost loved ones in such circumstances, that even at the expense of their loved ones' lives, they can still be proud of their inalienable 'right' to carry guns.
I know that this is an 'explosive' topic (no pun intended) so I won't post anything more on gun control because I do feel that if you were to change your opinion on the matter, it will only come about through your own self-realisation at some stage in your life. Our parents and their parents, in turn, are not all perfect role-models and were certainly not always right, so it's okay to think outside the box and come to decisions that they may have frowned upon.
Here and here.
Actually, this is a myth about the United States. I live in New York, where guns are no more obtainable than in the U.K. The sole exception being if you are in the NYPD. I do not own a gun, have never owned a gun and probably will never own a gun as long as I reside in New York. The same rings true for my family members.
That being said, there are still a number of people in New York with unlicensed guns, who are not afraid to use them. One of the main reasons why I hate comparing countries in terms of policy.
Another topic for another time.
See above. The shootings you hear about are typically perpetrated by psychopaths, who got ahold of unlicensed guns not even legal in their state. Jessi was working on a compilation post last not in response to MoK's list of shootings in the U.S., but her computer crashed and she lost all of her data.
It should also be noted that the United States is a much bigger country than the U.K. and most of its individual states are larger than England, alone. As such, the rate of anything is going to be substantially higher. A more accurate argument would be comparing U.S. violence to all of Europe.
It's actually a very docile topic to me. If it isn't for you, I'll respect that. But it's not really a touchy subject for me.
Now, these links unfortunately don't prove a 'right' to me, but are merely quotes from either the (IMO) historically outdated Second Amendment, or from political figures of the time. The constitution once referred indirectly to the 'right to own slaves', whereby there was a section where it said that if people held to service or labour (slavery) in one state escape, they must not be freed by the laws of another state. Just because it's in the constitution does not make it a moral 'right' as a human being, which the gun lobby seem to imply. Personally, I would place education, medicine, clean drinking water etc high and above any 'right' to bear arms.
The USA in those days were a far different place to what it is now. The physical insecurity of colonising a vast continent of wild lawlessness would obviously mean that weapons would be required but, once again, is this really relevant in 2011? No one is talking about removing the arms of the police and military, because it is their duty to keep us safe, but if all weapons were removed from people, it would be a start to creating a better society. If people wanted to shoot or hunt, they could (as an unresearched, off-the-cuff suggestion) hire weapons from a gun club after undergoing rigorous scrutiny.
Country-size comparisons are undoubtedly true but the overall amount of gun violence in the USA is still markedly higher than in Western Europe. Seriously, when I occasionally hear of a gun outrage in the UK, Germany, France, Finland etc, I sit up and take note. But when the news comes from the USA, I barely bat an eyelid. If anything, I am inclined to feel that many of the European gun incidents seem to be copycat killings along the US example.
The USA has the highest rate of gun homicide in the developed Western world and is not that much better, per capita killings, than countries like Mexico, Paraguay, South Africa, Belarus and Zimbabwe. It's hardly a glowing endorsement of US gun policy.
I'm not suggesting that capital punishment be introduced as part of the clean up of US private US weapons but, for example, in Singapore, you can be executed for just pointing a firearm at someone, the premise being that pointing a weapon at someone is an indication as intent to shoot to kill. The result is that Singapore has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.
If you feel that you can live in New York without ever owning a gun, why not extend that to the rest of your country?
Respectfully, I think that line of argument is too simplistic. Most shooters certainly have psychological issues that may stem out of resentment, troubled upbringing etc - but not because they are 'psychopaths' in the medical definition of the word. Digging into the backgrounds of many of these shooters would likely reveal that they have been let down by their parents, society or other circumstances in their lives and being able to get hold of guns so easily, gives them the vehicle for lashing out at the world around them, but at such devastating levels. It's all very well for one to say that it is 'the person behind the gun that makes the difference', but even a homicidal car driver cannot inflict the type of mass killing in such a short space of time, that a homicidal gunman can.
To be fair, it isn't an issue for me too because in my life, gun ownership is almost irrelevant. However, you did have it in your 'political' list and so debate was bound to ensue.
I would say, just going back to your comment earlier about the size of your population, that gun crime may well statistically never affect you ... and I hope that it never does ... but picture getting home from school today and finding your Mom and Dad (and possibly siblings, if you have any), strewn around a blood-stained home and tell me that in spite of this, the right to bear arms overrides your right to a peaceful, non-violent life. I do not mean that example to be flippant or unnecessarily emotive, but the reality of life is that bad things DO happen to you, and are not just confined to someone else.
Now I shall just STFU!
You're referring to a Supreme Court case known as the Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Founding Fathers of the United States -- though not unianimously -- were primarily abolitionists. Frederick Douglas actually noted that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.
See, here's the thing though. Lets use education for example. You should have just as much right to education as a gun. That is, the government should not supply you your gun, but if you make a conscious decision to purchase a gun, then that is your choice. Same with education. You have the right to an education (not an obligation to one) insofar as if you wish to use your resources to follow that passion. And that's what it comes down to; debarring one of following that goal.
I disagree. A better society, to me, is not jurisdicted by bureaucrats in the government. The path to tyranny is paved with good intentions. Look at today, where we have laws that prohibit private restaurants from allowing their patrons to smoke. Where some people are debarred the ability to smoke in their own homes. Where in Los Angeles, officials have banned fireplaces in all new homes. Where in St. Charles, Missouri, there's been proposed bans on swearing in bars.
It starts with a "Nudge" (see Cass Sunstein's book on that very subject). Eventually, one day you wake up and wonder where everything went.
If, in England, you're cool with gun control, that's none of my business. But in the U.S., where we don't even secure our own borders to know what's coming in and out of here, all taking my gun away is puts me at gun point to get my head blown off.
But I'm glad you brought up the Police. I'm not sure what the laws are in the U.K., but in the U.S., the Police have no legal obligation to protect you. See the Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. The District of Columbia.
Consider that in 2002 (mind you, there's a 30 year gun ban in place), Washington D.C. police forces response time to a "Priority 1" emergency call was 8 minutes and 25 seconds. In New York, it's 7.2 minutes, In Los Angeles, it's 10.5 minutes. In Atalanta, Georgia, it's 11.1 minutes. In Philadelphia, it's 7 minutes. Et cetera, et cetera. And that's if your call even goes through. In 1998, an investigation dacknowledged that nearly 90,000 callers to 9-1-1 (our emergency line) had to wait at least 90 seconds for an answer. On top of that, 32,000 either couldn't connect at all or got so tired of waiting that they gave up.
In that time, I could put a round in my attacker's chest and brew a pot of tea. I'm sorry, but why should I feel insecure in my own home, knowing that if someone breaks in with a gun, all I have to defend myself with is everyday household items? That's not a better society to me.
Gun laws only serve to disarm people who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
I'm curious though. Do you view guns the same way you do drugs?
Thing is that in the majority of places where those shootings occur, there are strict gun laws in place. And even then, it's not like we're desensitized to the shock of it in the U.S. Very few, if any, states are without gun control. As I said before, Jessi was compiling a post dedicated to exposing that myth in regards to the mass shootings in the U.S.
If we pit the State of Louisiana, alone (the State with the most gun violence in the U.S.) in the pool of gun violence per country, I wonder what will happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
It seems that Louisiana's percentage is quite a bit higher than the national percentage. But if you look at the next highest on that list, it's Maryland -- which would pit us right behind Uruguay. Now, mind you, that's the state with the second highest rate of gun violence in the U.S. and it's already moving down on that list.
Utah, Iowa, South Dakota, Maine, North Dakota, Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont and New Hampshire all fall below Singapore, which is at the bottom of the above list. Those same nine, by the way? All "shall issue", with the exception of Hawaii which is "may issue".
http://fenris.perldev.org/docs/weaponbanornot.pdf
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
As for living in New York without a gun, that's not a choice. That's the law. Unless I'm willing to break the law, I'm pretty much up shit creek without a paddle if I have it out with someone who's strapped.
There's very few pro-gun advocates that vouch for sales of guns without background checks and psychological evaluation. Least of all me. And people like Jared Lee Loughner, who have an unbridled sense of destruction in their minds will find ways to get ahold of weapons. The difference being: Can private citizens put him down as soon as he starts firing (as they did with the Demoniac in 1775, a year before the Declaration of Indepence was signed) or wait until cops arrive on the scene and potentially have a higher casualty due to allowing the perpetrator more time to fire on his victims?
That's a fair argument. It seems that personal experience can verily alter someone's perspective on a subject. For example, Carolyn McCarthy, a U.S. Representative for the State of New York, lost her husband (her son was also injured) in shooting by a demented racist named Colin Ferguson. She's been a strict opponent of gun rights ever since.
By the same token, a U.S. Representative in the state of Ohio, Michael DeBose, had a similar experience with a very different outcome.
But no, to answer your question, the thought of banning guns wouldn't even enter my mind. I wouldn't blame my rights for the acts of one demented individual. That, to me, is the same as blaming God when a family member gets sick. I've never been the kind of person who played the blame game. That's just never been my mindset; I've been a person who's had a lot of really traumatic things happen in his life and remained happy, nevertheless. In that particular situation, I'd probably be more inclined to have more of my loved one trained in how to wield a weapon in the off-chance that they're presented with similar dangers.
To put that into perspective with a real life example, there was an organized crime syndicate some few years ago led by these two brothers named the Tailiers. Imagine Charles Manson times four (they once blow torched a girl's face off.) My biological father had been involved with them and owed them money. What wound up happening? My mother had a gun put to her head and was saved at the last second when the guy got a phone call that they got the money.
There's more to that story much more gruesome than that, but I won't divulge it in a public place. Despite those things happening, it hasn't changed my views on gun control.
And it's okay. As I've said before, I don't get offended very easily.
JFK was surrounded by what would be considered some of the best trained guards in the world (secret service), having guns didnt stop him being killed. Reagan whilst not dying still got shot.
The last pope did as well, could well have died the same as Reagan nearly did, doesnt make a difference if you have a gun or not, if someone really wants to blow your head off and gets the chance, if they pull the trigger first, doesnt matter what you have in your hand.
Reagan wasnt, If I remember correctly a bloke walked up to him and shot him.
We could get into semantics about guns and rifles, the difference between them being the rifling (lines inside the barrel to make the round spin) but several hand guns are rifled too.
And during the Reagan assassination, D.C. had a ban on guns. So, the point you make is, indeed, valid: "doesnt make a difference if you have a gun or not, if someone really wants to blow your head off and gets the chance, if they pull the trigger first, doesnt matter what you have in your hand." Gun control or not.
By the way:
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
http://keepandbeararms.com/opsd/
That's all your posting from what I can see. Someone kills someone with a gun, so you should have one for security - just in case.
Those two websites chronicle successful gun defenses. Which was relevant to what was being addressed.
I avoided using this point because it's kind of childish, but since you felt compelled to do so, I'm going to use the same logic as you. You can kill someone with a hammer. Should we ban those? How about toasters? Dangerous things, them toaster. Who needs 'em? Pencils? Far too pointy. While we're at it, lets ban guard dogs too because they're just vicious. And ya never know, that witchcraft stuff could hurt someone if left unchecked. Lets get rid of that too.
What would you carry a gun for if its not to shoot people? Isnt shooting people wrong?
Youre not allowed to carry knives around either unless youve got a damn good reason for it and can prove its not intended as a weapon. If you were carrying a hammer with intent to possibly use it on a person, that would be illegal too. I dont care if its self defence or not. Just the act of carrying a weapon is aggressive and more likely to make a fight, turn into a killing
People dont really tend to attack each other with toasters though.
But you say it'll turn a fight into killing. Now, consider if you're on the New York Subway and someone pulls a knife on you. Wouldn't you want the ability to pull a knife out and equal the playing field? Once again, all gun control does is put those who have no desire to commit crimes at a disadvantage. You can control your own violence, but you can't control other people's. So, rather than disadvantage yourself by being up against an assailant who has a weapon and you don't -- why not have one on you, yourself?
It's not like you're forced to carry a gun in places where they're legalized anyway. If you find them uncomfortable, you can opt out of owning one by not buying one.
Yes, but to use one to kill, you have to own or have possession of one.
Depends on the knife, I could understand cutlery being used for eating food. Though something that crocodile dundee or rambo would carry around, doesnt really have a use if you are just walking around in the street with it.
Knifes are by design, used for cutting things.
Gun by design are used to kill or injure.
But you don't have to use them for that, at least not humans. You may use them for vermin control, or hunting, or target shooting or self-protection.
Which isn't to say that there should be no laws and complete anarchy on ownership; as much fun as firing off a GPMG is I'm not sure they should be on sale to the public. However the UK laws are overly strict and seem to have moved the balance of liberty vs security too far towards security
I was just trying to highlight that guns were designed with the intent of being able to kill and seriously harm. Knives on the other hand are not (even though they could be used for such).
The arguments that are presented in here are quite good as to why you should have more lax gun control in some situations. The problem with comparing the UK with the US is that as a whole firearms have relatively little penetration into the general UK public. In the US firearms are allready everywhere it seems. In the US you perhaps do need to protect yourself as there are a lot more weapons about than the UK. However in the UK because there are relatively few firearms, what may be a valid argument in the US for posession of a firearm, cant really be applied to the UK.
Two totally different cultures where I think both sides of the argument hold true in their own respective countries.
Accepting the views that are different to my own, if the second ammendment never existed, and gun ownership in the US was relative to that of the UK, would the same argument for the "NEED" of a gun still be valid. I pose that purely as a hypothetical question.
As for your hypothetical, I still maintain my position in that case due to the potential of government tyranny. The Second Amendment (I know you said if it never existed, but I'm pointing out that it doesn't just say "guns are kawaii LOL") also guarantees the people the right to form a militia.
Yes but this is a discussion, differing views and points can and are often still valid. As this is a UK based community advice board, dismissing a persons point of view when talking about the UK isnt really that fair.
The Constitution was framed to (legally) protect the individual from the State. It is a document of individual rights against interference, not in anyway a promise of provision, as CJS has alluded to.
I suspect you are not alone in thinking it is outdated, as it was intended for a "moral people" who held personal responsibility as a virtue. There seems to be a severe shortage of that kind of thing nowadays.
Maybe that is a result of a totalitarian/authoritarian century (20th) ?
e/
Problem I see with this though, is if you flood society with more available guns (regardless that you have to go through guidelines to see if you are legally allowed to own a gun) then you're just arming more people to protect themselves in the event someone else who has a gun for the same reason (even if they don't, they can say they have it for protection). It just takes the one person to use it inappropriately.
This reminds me of the old joke where a tourist asks the farmer the quickest way to Belfast and the old farmer sucks in his teeth and says, "Well, I wouldn't start from here."
But yes the US and UK started from different places, by the time the handguns (rifles and pistols) became widely available and cheap England (and later the UK) was a centralised state, with a strong rule of law and no 'barbarians' on the frontier (no jokes about the Jocks), but to get to that state it had butchered through wars from Stephen and Matilda to the Glencoe massacre. By the eigheenth century there were no need for weapons and there was a powerful enough state to keep some sort of control over groups trying to build up their own armouries.
The US wasn't a strong state able to defend the weak (it didn't even have a standing army) nor was it centralised enough for many on its frontiers to respect the laws. It became a weapon owning culture for some very good reasons.
Fast forward to today the amounts of weapons in private hands in the UK is miniscule (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland); it's easy to restrict gun ownership with minor repercussions as whilst criminals may not hand in their weapons few enough of them are armed to make a difference.
If you decided to ban all (or most) private weapons in the US there would remain a lot more weapons in criminal hands. Whilst I would tend to accept that in the long-term (30-40 years) the murder rate would decline as these weapons are gradually siezed, broken or lost, but in the short-medium term I suspect the murder rate would go up as criminals would still be carrying weapons, but would be able to act with greater impunity knowing they wouldn't routinely come across armed householders or shopkeepers
I am not so sure that they did. The right to bear arms was English Law (and had been legislated as far as I am aware since the 12th century). That law was still active in 1791, and actually applied to the US colonies before the War of Independance.
Gun control,in the UK, did not accelerate for nearly another century.
Control is irrelevant - its whether there was a use for the gun in the culture and whether those who were picking them up for 'political' reasons would be crushed by the state.
I didn't dismiss anything...
Explain how mine was childish, but yours was not. Explain how mine was fallacious, but yours was not. Quite frankly, I think they were both childish as I said from the beginning.
And that last sentence rings true whether there's gun control or not. Also, as I've stated, access to guns doesn't mean that it's like going to the corner store and picking up a pack of gum.
But also that it makes for good debate (Teagan's and the Chief, for example, have made extremely good arguments from opposing sides, which may not change views but should make the more intelligent readers think)