View previous topic | View next topic

Gun laws

Page 3 of 41
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 39, 40, 41  Next

Bealzybub
835582.  Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:04 pm Reply with quote

Arcane: I will never be convinced that broad based gun ownership is a good thing. Being threatened with a gun or by someone who knows how to use it, and people who keep guns in a house in defiance of the gun laws where there are small children present defy belief.

Have a look at this;

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Doing the math here you can see that per capita in the United States 1 out of every 28 people were a victim of crime in this country in 2009 alone. You may never be convinced that broad based gun ownership is a good thing here but then again you probably wont ever live here.

Rewboss: The Second Amendment to the US Constitution begins: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Then ends with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Rewboss again: When the Bill of Rights was being drafted, standing armies and police forces pretty much didn't exist. Since the US now has a standing army and police, you could argue (and many people have done so) that the need for a well-regulated militia no longer exists and that the Second Amendment no longer applies.

Of course one could argue that, but again referencing the above link, factual data produced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it appears that the police are much less than highly effective.

If the amount of gun and violent crime in the USA were broken down into two groups, gun crimes committed by criminals verses gun crimes committed by those with no prior criminal record the statistics would show in a stark manner who is committing these crimes. The laws here favor the criminals and hinder law abiding citizens. To me the fact that anyone in the USA would not want to own a gun defies belief, IMHO. OTOH I respect everyones right to do as they please so long as what they do doesnt infringe the personal or property rights of others, if one doesnt want to own a gun I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm sorry to say though, that with those that oppose gun ownership this is a one way street.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think everyone should have a weapon. If one were to purchase a firearm I feel that they should be trained in its operation and usage. Personally I can operate, load, unload, activate and de-activate safeties on what I own in pitch black darkness. Regardless of whether one owns a gun or not, if I/we/us were around where gun thugs with nefarious purposes were to present themselves I would never disallow someone from hiding behind....me. OTOH I consider myself a bit better trained than the average user.

Having guns with children in the home gets to be a sticky situation. Its hard to have a readily useable weapon when there are children around. Conversely homes with children have the most priceless item to lose in a bad situation.

Complex indeed.

 
suze
835594.  Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:04 pm Reply with quote

OK, so we get the message that living where you do, you feel it necessary to own guns.

But you said earlier that you'd depart for Australia forthwith, if only their gun laws were different. Australia's gun laws are indeed different, but then the crime figures are lower, and the criminals they do have are less likely to carry a piece than are American ones. What's more - and while I'm by no means one of those who will always defend the police - they are not as incompetent everywhere as you represent them to be in Portland OR.

Wouldn't you rather live in a place where you wouldn't have a gun because you wouldn't need one, rather than avoid moving there because it would be less easy to (legally) own a gun?

 
Spud McLaren
835596.  Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:13 pm Reply with quote

It is odd, though, that I have a friend who moved to Portland OR several years ago from a reasonably well-to-do part of the UK, and I've never once heard him refer to the fear he lives in*, nor is he the sort of person who would contemplate owning a firearm. Is it a matter of perception of danger rather than actual danger, or is it just that he may be living in a part of Portland that sees no crime?

* mainly because he doesn't live in any fear at all, apart from that of losing his job.

 
Bealzybub
835597.  Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:18 pm Reply with quote

Suze: What's more - and while I'm by no means one of those who will always defend the police - they are not as incompetent everywhere as you represent them to be in Portland OR.

I completely agree. Its not so much that they are incompetent but simply more gun happy and corrupt. Not too mention their lack of enthusiasm of entrance into a dangerous situation rather to wait until after the fact then simply investigating the crime rather than intervening and preventing it. The almost dozen (in the last ten years) killings by police here have been upon unarmed citizens, male and female, unarmed.

Suze: Wouldn't you rather live in a place where you wouldn't have a gun because you wouldn't need one, rather than avoid moving there because it would be less easy to (legally) own a gun?

I would rather live in a place I wouldnt need a gun but would still be able to enjoy what I consider my favorite hobby.

 
CB27
835612.  Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:04 pm Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Its not so much that they are incompetent but simply more gun happy and corrupt. Not too mention their lack of enthusiasm of entrance into a dangerous situation rather to wait until after the fact then simply investigating the crime rather than intervening and preventing it. The almost dozen (in the last ten years) killings by police here have been upon unarmed citizens, male and female, unarmed.

This makes me wonder if you're truly honest with yourself as to why you really want a gun.

If you were confronted with someone who has such a strong distrust of the police, think they should simply barge into dangerous situations in a gung-ho fashion, and (as per previous posts) is worried about how dangerous their city is, would you think that's a healthy mix to bring gun ownership into the equasion?

Quote:
I would rather live in a place I wouldnt need a gun but would still be able to enjoy what I consider my favorite hobby.

You can still indulge in a hobby that involves guns in so many forms here in the UK and other countries with strict controls, the laws simply restrict the ownership and carrying of guns. Surely your hobby is not centred on actually owning and carrying a gun?

 
bobwilson
835618.  Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:57 pm Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
I just wish the gun laws were a little different over where you guys are. I'd be there in a heart beat but I do love my guns.


I haven't read this thread. I'd just like to state (as a matter of opinion) that I don't give a flying fuck whether you decide to come "over here". Anymore than I suppose you give a toss whether my decision not to visit your country is determined by (perm any 3 from 5)

inherent racism
voting a moron for president
illegal invasions
crap television
crapper cars
high murder rate
Sarah Palin
Dubya (ie having a president who's main claim to fame is being recorded as a mispronunciation of a letter of the alphabet)

I could go on - but I think on balance, you just stay over there and we'll suffer the consequences of you not visiting. There's a good little chap?

 
Bealzybub
835624.  Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:50 pm Reply with quote

CB27: If you were confronted with someone who has such a strong distrust of the police, think they should simply barge into dangerous situations in a gung-ho fashion, and (as per previous posts) is worried about how dangerous their city is, would you think that's a healthy mix to bring gun ownership into the equasion?

I guess I'm not clear on your point. Knowing that the police will wait till the smoke clears is supposed to make me arrive at a conclusion that it would be best to [i]not[/i] be able to protect myself?

Then BobWilson:
inherent racism
voting a moron for president
illegal invasions
crap television
crapper cars
high murder rate
Sarah Palin
Dubya (ie having a president who's main claim to fame is being recorded as a mispronunciation of a letter of the alphabet)

I could go on - but I think on balance, you just stay over there and we'll suffer the consequences of you not visiting. There's a good little chap?


I dont care about the color of ones skin, only the content of their character.

I didnt vote for the "moron".

I think illegals should be deported but the federal government doesnt (again those that I didnt vote for).

"Crap television", I agree but I dont control the programming and have a choice to watch what I want to or dont want to.

Crap cars only go to show what happens when politicians buy votes from union employees and tell them no matter how shitty a car they build they will never lose their jobs.

The murder rate only emphasizes the reason I should be allowed to own a gun and protect myself, thank you.

You actually are assuming I agree with Palin or are you lumping me into a category because I'm American?

So far as Bush I didnt vote for him either.

Is this the part where this conversation has deteriorated into stupidity?

You seem to damn me without a lot of knowledge of me, isnt that kinda racist?

 
Bealzybub
835625.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:46 am Reply with quote

Spud McLaren: It is odd, though, that I have a friend who moved to Portland OR several years ago from a reasonably well-to-do part of the UK, and I've never once heard him refer to the fear he lives in*, nor is he the sort of person who would contemplate owning a firearm. Is it a matter of perception of danger rather than actual danger, or is it just that he may be living in a part of Portland that sees no crime?

* mainly because he doesn't live in any fear at all, apart from that of losing his job.


Whats really odd is that you just had a friend that just happened to move to the city of my residence, very odd indeed.

Just a question though, why/who is it that lives in fear anywhere? I certainly dont, I'm better protected than even those whom are "protected" by the Portland police.

Keep trying people, your arguments fail at this point. You point out hypothesis, not reality. Not in the sense of whether one should own a gun or not, but in your own petty pity.

 
suze
835639.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:13 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
You seem to damn me without a lot of knowledge of me, isnt that kinda racist?


[Aside]

Not when coming from bob - he treats everyone much like that!

He'd tell you that everyone actually agrees with him even if they don't realize it. You'll have to take your own view on that, but his forcefully expressed opinions should never be taken personally.

[/Aside]

 
rewboss
835645.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:13 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Rewboss: The Second Amendment to the US Constitution begins: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Then ends with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Well yes, but that can't negate the first phrase, otherwise you might as well not have laws at all. If the phrase about a well-regulated militia being necessary is included, it must be included for a reason, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the people who drafted that particular piece of legislation intended the second phrase to be dependent on the first; that if a well-regulated militia were not necessary, there would be no need to give citizens the right to bear arms.

But, as I said, that's one argument you could make. As I also said, the Supreme Court has decided to side with the other argument, which is that the Second Amendment is intended to give people the right to defend themselves, and that, if a "militia" can be defined as any group of people with their own weapons working together, a militia is desireable even today. (Personally, I disagree, but I'm not the one making the rules.)

Of course, if the police are so useless that they can't keep law and order without the assistence of members of the public, perhaps a better strategy would be to train the police better and give them more resources, rather than have to resort to giving just anybody, trained or untrained, the right to carry and use deadly weapons as they see fit.

I find it very interesting that when a mass shooting occurs in the US, the public reaction is to call for greater gun ownership, whereas when a mass shooting occurs in the UK or Germany, the public reaction is for greater gun control. My personal feeling is that general gun ownership is a bad thing (a well-meaning but untrained and inexperienced gun owner can be as much a danger to society as a murderer), but in a country like the US, where gun ownership is taken pretty much for granted, it would be sheer folly to outlaw gun ownership overnight. It will take at least a couple of generations. As a first step, I'd suggest some kind of federal gun licence (assuming that's possible). Then, once that's working, insist that licences can only be obtained or renewed once the owner has gone through proper training and passed a test, in much the same way that you have to pass a driving test to get a driver's licence.

I think it may be worth it, though. The latest homicide rate for the US, a country where gun ownership is common and the police routinely armed, is 5.0; that for the UK, where gun ownership is practically banned and the police routinely unarmed, is 1.28; and that for Germany, where gun ownership is highly regulated and the police routinely armed but seldom resort to using their weapons, is 0.86.

 
Posital
835646.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:23 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
I think illegals should be deported but the federal government doesnt (again those that I didnt vote for).
But what do the Afghan, Iraqi, Cuban, Nicaraguan, Mexican, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, etc governments feel about this? But as far as immigration to the US is concerned, it would further cripple the economy if the illegal immigrants were deported, not simply harassed.

 
Spud McLaren
835652.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:54 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Whats really odd is that you just had a friend that just happened to move to the city of my residence, very odd indeed.
Well, I can't be held responsible for his decisions. I'd have thought that there were plenty of jobs in computing available at the time in the UK, but that was his decision, not mine. I didn't just have the friend; we became friends about 30 years ago, when we discovered a common love of playing blues & ragtime piano. And he didn't just move to Portland; I can't remember exactly how long he's been there, but his eldest daughter was born there, and is now about 20 years old.

Bealzybub wrote:
Just a question though, why/who is it that lives in fear anywhere? I certainly dont, I'm better protected than even those whom are "protected" by the Portland police.
Why would you feel the need to protect yourself if you weren't in fear of attack?

Bealzybub wrote:
Keep trying people, your arguments fail at this point. You point out hypothesis, not reality. Not in the sense of whether one should own a gun or not, but in your own petty pity.
The reality is this: you evidently feel that it is necessary for you to own and be able to use a firearm, not only for the hobby angle, but also for your own and your family's protection. The people on this forum arguing against you live in the UK and Australia, where gun ownership and use is much more stringently controlled, and they obviously don't feel the need to protect themselves with guns. That's an actual situation, not a hypothetical one.

Although he expresses it more bluntly that I would, I'm with bob on this one. You don't like our gun laws, so you're staying out of the country. I think that's the most sensible course, for all our sakes.

 
masterfroggy
835660.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:43 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:

Keep trying people, your arguments fail at this point. You point out hypothesis, not reality. Not in the sense of whether one should own a gun or not, but in your own petty pity.


reality

A 1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found that a gun kept at home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than to stop an intruder. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that children in states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm.

In a survey carried out by American Journal of Preventive Medicine in San Diego (admittedly by a tiny tiny sample of people who live only in San Diego 525 respondent) it was found that only 27.7% of people who kept a gun at home, actually kept it loaded, 64.4% kept the gun loaded but locked away. Of all the people who owned a gun, only 4.65% had any formal firearms training. According to the survey, people were more willing to have a gun loaded and ready to fire in their cars than they were in their homes.

If a gun owner was acting responsibly, their gun would not be stolen from them. and into the hands of the very people you fear.

 
exnihilo
835667.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:31 am Reply with quote

Just as an aside, protecting your family and/or property and purposely discharging a lethal weapon at someone are not even remotely the same beast.

 
rewboss
835670.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:50 am Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:
Just as an aside, protecting your family and/or property and purposely discharging a lethal weapon at someone are not even remotely the same beast.


Are you saying there is no such thing as a "kill-or-be-killed" scenario?

 

Page 3 of 41
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 39, 40, 41  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group