What will it take for America to change its gun laws?
I've said this for quite some time but seriously... ban the bloody things! Ammendments can be ammended right? Ammendment 21 cancels out Ammendment 18 on the prohibition of alcohol right? Surely the events in Virginia this week just proove how easy it is to just run amock with a gun and shoot 32 people! Ok, I'm not American, I've never been to America but seriously something has to change. I'm not the biggest fan of my own country, but guns have been effectively banned here since the 90s and the Dunblane incident (the Scottish equivalent of Columbine or Virginia Tech) although they aren't completely banned (an old neighbour of mine, completely crazy old fella, used to have a gun with which he would quite legally shoot crows.)
A lot of this has a lot to do with culture, and culture can't simply change overnight. There is a gradual memetic mutation. One thing that has perhaps slowed down this change, I would argue is the article in the Bill of Rights permitting the right to bear firearms, obviously written in a time of great uncertainty in the 18th century when America was still a frontier of the known world, the edge of the known world (to Europeans anyway). Fierce patriotism can keep such fallacies going; look the founding fathers thought it was ok, so it must be our God-given right (pity they don't realise the founding fathers generally weren't Christian and kept slaves either but that simply shows how unthinkiing such people are). You'd think in the wake of such disasters as Columbine and Virginia Tech and the various other massacres that have taken place, values might gradually change and the gun laws might over time become tighter.
With Britain there is a difference, we have no real constitution and have gradually evolved a democratic system over centuries, we had civil wars and revolutions and I'm sure guns and weapons were a common problem in those times, but memetic evolution has taken its course and our values have changed. We've had times of great uncertainty even in the 20th century, the Blitz, Economic busts leading to civil unrest in the 70s and 80s, but a gun culture hasn't developed out of it. That is not to say there isn't a gun culture in this country, just 5 minutes walk down the road from my parents house (where I am now) is one of the worst areas in the country for gun crime, never mind in Manchester. There are several shootings each year (only say 8-10 shootings per year is a significant percentage of the national statistic per year). This is however isolated to gang culture of which there is a lot around that area, and the average life expectancy for people who get into that gang culture is 24. Then there is of course Northern Ireland where there has been a state of sectarian-based civil war for centuries and gun-crime is extremely high.
The fact that the vast majority of the population of this country hates guns and that it is illegal even to bear a firearm (without a liscense for shooting game) severely limits the possibility for Columbine and Virginia Tech type incidents, the only one I know of in my lifetime was Dunblane, and that was before the laws were tightened. The scary thought is that the Virginia Tech shooter was able to acquire a firearm easily and legally. I really think America needs a stronger anti-gun lobby to combat the NRA. I'm sure there are a very large number of the population opposed to guns, they really need to unite.
- Login to post comments
It's funny that you mention the 18 ammendment in your "Ban the guns bit".
It's not like we have a mafia thanks to the temporary banning of alchohol.
oh wait.
i applaud you on your knowledge of another country. most americans know nothing about scotland or any other country for that matter.
anyway, even though i completely agree with you on what you said, obvious problems would arise on gun prohibition. just look at what happened when we did that to alcohol, it just got sold illegally. the same goes today for marijuana. i would fully expect the same thing to happen to guns.
It isn't going to make them completely unavailable, but it will make them rarer and much MUCH harder to get. The point is to stop every tom dick and harry who has mental issues like the VT shooter from being able to go on such rampages.
Look at an Australian newspaper, there's plenty of gun crime from organised gangs, but most hostage situations and stuff like that done by tom dick & harry's is with a knife or some other significantly less dangerous weapon. Hell, you're not even allowed to carry knives on the streets anyway.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
I think it has to do a great deal of culture. American culture (H.L Mencken would put that in inverted commas) is steeped in violence. This makes me think people should not be allowed guns. In Switzerland, every adult is issued for militia duty a fully loaded automatic military assault rifle which they are allowed to keep. It has the lowest crime rate in the world. can you imagine what would happen if we allowed Americans to do that?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
We'd have a bunch of people that are on pins and needles-- but I believe to conclude that the country would become more or less violent would be premature.
It's equally likely that every individual who thought to himself, 'I'm going to hijack/rob/kill person X'-- might think twice if he knew that everyone around had a gun as well.
The problem of gun violence could equally be argued as a disparity between gun ownership-- only a 'few' people own them.
In anycase, as for the 2nd ammendment.. I think about it some-- the problem I have is-- when the people in power are the only ones with guns, it presents a dangerous situation. IMO.
The problem of gun violence could equally be argued as a disparity between gun ownership-- only a 'few' people own them.
How many Americans own guns? There are over 700 millions small arms in the world, and 200 million are in the United States in private hands. There are so many firearms in the United States that if you gave one to every adult, you would run out of adults long before you ran out of guns.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
How so? The politicians are more dangerous if they're the only ones armed, is that what you're saying?
(Edit: I highly doubt that is what you're saying, but that's the only way I can read that sentence until you clarify it a bit more)
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
If the government is the only one armed.. yes.
There may be 200 million small arms in private hands... yet I couldn't imagine that more than 30 percent of households are the owners of these small arms (feel free to give statistics.. I don't have any).
Yet, even if this is the fact, gun control makes it so that "carrying" a weapon fairly difficult if not illegal.
Think of this hypothetical:
If there was a law that stated everyone person MUST carry a gun at all times-- how many less people would have died during the Virginia Tech shooting?
Listen.. I'm not saying that this is what should be done-- nevertheless, it is an argument.
England and the United States do have different mentalities (IMO). Yet, they were born out of different situations..
England "developed" (common law).. the U.S. was "created" (constitutional democracy).
The reasons for the "creation" of the U.S. was (arguably so) in response to an overreaching government (at the time it was Great Britain)... as such, the constitution could be interpreted as a means by which the "forefathers" protected future generations from an overreaching government of its own.
Granted.. it might be a dark thought to believe that the 2nd amendment is some sort of representation of the antagonistic relationship between the government and the populace.. but still-- is it not so? The political climate at the moment would suggest that there is a great fear of an overreaching government.. how much less of "protection" would the populace have if the "government", and its agents, were the only ones with weapons?
"A well armed populace is the highest form of check against the wants of an overreaching government."
I'm being quite anarchistic at the moment. Forgive me. Just speaking my thoughts..
There may be 200 million small arms in private hands... yet I couldn't imagine that more than 30 percent of households are the owners of these small arms (feel free to give statistics.. I don't have any).
I'll see what I can find.
If there was a law that stated everyone person MUST carry a gun at all times-- how many less people would have died during the Virginia Tech shooting?
This was the argument of university professor John R Lott, who wrote a book called More Guns Less Crime. Nonetheless, criminologists and stasticians have never been able to replicate his results. There is no evidence, not even a mathematical correlation, between right-to-carry laws and lower crime rates.
The reasons for the "creation" of the U.S. was (arguably so) in response to an overreaching government (at the time it was Great Britain)... as such, the constitution could be interpreted as a means by which the "forefathers" protected future generations from an overreaching government of its own.
The Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms was at a time when America was a baby nation with much of it's settlers in frontier settlements across the nation. George Washington had needed to draft a militia, and as such all Americans had the right to carry arms. There is no modern equivalent of the fronteir militia in todays urban/industrial/iformation society.
Granted.. it might be a dark thought to believe that the 2nd amendment is some sort of representation of the antagonistic relationship between the government and the populace.. but still-- is it not so? The political climate at the moment would suggest that there is a great fear of an overreaching government.. how much less of "protection" would the populace have if the "government", and its agents, were the only ones with weapons?
The purpose of the amendment was not to protect citizens against their own government.
I'm being quite anarchistic at the moment. Forgive me. Just speaking my thoughts..
It would be a rather worrying situation.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm not trying sound crude, but someone will read it as such; 33 dead people are by no means a reason to deprive 300,000,000 million people the right to own a gun. Taking advantage of this situation would be a grandstanding approach to make a handful of politicians look like 'heroes'.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I said MUST not.. "given the right". We have the right to carry arms.. just.. not in public places, inside buildings, on college campuses, in cars, or some other restriction.. etc.
I don't believe any state has anything less then "moderate" restrictions regarding the carrying of arms.
The is how you interpret the purpose of the amendment:
Yet,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Creation_of_the_Second_Amendment
You might find that the issue is a bit more complicated:
"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You can choose to interpret "security of a free state" as "security of a free state within a frontier country".. but, I don't believe that is necessarily the interpretation.
Once again.. you can interpret the constitution however you wish.. yet, still, the ability to interpret is one of the major benefits (and costs) of our legal system in that it allows for differing interpretations.. and one cannot be applied unilaterally.
In anycase.. those are my thoughts. If you find some statistics.. let me know.
Exactly, just like censorship, just becuase a little group of people are not mature enough to handle words. Tell them to not listen/watch to the station, instead of letting them run a whole country.
I know there is more to the sentence, so don't start saying things about out of context (Note the elipses).
You try running a school with almost no money while "Your leader" is busy useing the money that would so help you to hold hostages.
Last time I checked, British shows where not readily available in america.
(You hear that, BBC?)
But enough about that, let's have a deep fried mars bar.
I agree with you exactly. Gun ownership is a longstanding freedom in the US, and I don't think a single incident is a good reason to end it.
And, protection from the government was one of the reasons for the second amendment. I think that's worth something.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
It's not a single incident, it's one of thousands of incidents which could easily be averted. Some of us are just hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Theistic arguments there. Second ammendment was from a different time and a different type of government. It is losing its relevance on a daily basis similarly to laws and rules of the bible losing their relevance in todays society.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
This isn't a theistic argument.. its a legal one.
Tis true. Yet, the question is whether the relationship between THAT government and its people and THIS government and its people.. still exists to a sufficient degree as to justify the continuance of the second amendment.
You might say "No".. but still.. it's a legal question. Personally.. I'm just one of those people that doesn't trust the government enough to give it, and its agents, sole right to bear arms or freely restrict my ability to do so.
In the same sense.. I don't trust the government enough to give them increased (or agree with what little power they have) to pressure censorship (i.e. F.C.C.).
Government, like religion, has an inherent danger involved within the complexity of the system:
"That the system may be manipulated to focus more on self-propogation and increasing power/influence as opposed to being a "service for people" in nature."
IMO.
Heh. Um. Yah. Okay.
You act as if we can just ban guns and end all violence, and without any negative consequences. I don't think that's a given, and I think there is probably a very strong cultural element to violence. But really, I think self-defense is an important right, a worthwhile end in itself.
Where? Please, ad hominem will get you nowhere. I'm not required to be a leftist just because I'm an atheist. In fact, I don't think atheism requires any particular political philosophy.
I think the second amendment is still applicable today, and I don't see where you've justified the claim that it isn't. I agree that it is less plausible for civilians to overthrow the government than it once was, but an armed populace could still discourage the most outrageous acts.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
look, i live in america too. and i know bbc is available in america(on satalite/digital). i'm just saying most americans barely know anything about other countries' governments.
First off to do as you say and remove guns from the civilians would cause another Civil war. The problem with your arguement to remove guns from civilians is that over 50% of our population owns guns...I mean just in the County I live in there are enough guns to arm 1 man with 4 guns per person in the entire county(ps. those are the registered ones that doesn't include the ones people decieded to not to register if it wasn't already registered). I also like to go hunting with my guns...does that mean i can't hunt anymore if the civilains can't own guns. I mean its a proven fact that without hunting your deer are usually a third of the size they normally are if people can hunt. I dont usually side with Republicans but in this area i usually side with them only cuz i also am a hunter. Also it is legal in PA to carry a gun in a public place as long a it is completely visible...and thats without a permit. If you have a permit you can have your permit revoked if you wear it and it is not concealed.
I totally agree. Americans have a tendency to create new legislation after any tragedy strikes and its usually spearheaded by disengenuous politicians playing the fear card. Look at the madness behind the "zero tolerance" mandates our public schools embraced after Columbine. Instead of fixing a perceived problem they created a rats nest of unbending and asinine regulations that have done nothing but cripple k-12 education (not an anology to a gun ban, but to hasty, poorly planned legislation instituted by self serving politicians).
The recent shooting at VT, tragic as it is, doesn't make for an epidemic.
Outlawing guns isn't the answer. I know it's an argument older than I but it holds true. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why we call them criminals. By outlawing guns in America we would effectively turn millions of law abiding citizens into law breakers over night. If they choose to conform they'll be left defenseless against those who've already decided they are outside of the law.
Citing the success of gun laws in Europe to justify the same in America doesn't add up. It's already been brought up in this post so forgive the redundancy, but to think we could actually disarm hundreds of thousands of gun toting criminals while at the same time keep unarmed, lawabiding citizens safe (those who voluntarily turn in their guns) seems outlandish. We're dealing with a land mass and population that dwarves any in Europe.
On another note, in my home state of Oregon we are allowed to carry with a permit (which any adult non-felon can get). Gun crime in the state is very low (I'm not necessarily correlating the 2), but rape and battery are all to common. What's my 100lb girlfriend going to do with a pocket knife or a can of mace when some thug twice her size decides she's a convenient victim? Having a carry permit gives her a highly effective means of defense. I'm glad she has the option.
I think the cry to ban guns is a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy. I understand why it sounds good at a glance, but the argument for is poorly reasoned.
It would have helped if you said Canada or Mexico, instead of Scotland
Unfortunatly most of it's just junk (Although I like coupling).
I got that, yes. sorry.
Wow, where the hell did you get this from? It's not like that in Canada, that's for sure. Up here, if a cop even fires his or her weapon, regardless if they actually hit someone, it's all over the papers for months. We're not exactly under constant opression by jackbooted thugs up here.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
Heh. I didn't mean to suggest that it creates a situation that necessarily brings harm-- I said.. it creates a "dangerous situation".
Perhaps.. "dangerous circumstance" would have been better?
The only reason you're all happy up north is because your government hasn't overreached what you perceived to be its bounds.
Yet, if they did-- lets say.. some general staged a coup (extreme situation.. but always possible).. what would stop them from forcing their will on the canadian populace?
The 2nd amendment is not, I believe, a protection against what IS but what COULD BE. Yes.. perhaps we are a bit paranoid down here. Then again.. I would contend that's is the reason ("paranoia" and purpose (protection) of the 1st amendment as well.. and many others.
I would contend, again, that the second amendment provides an important check for the government.
I'm rather torn on this issue. On the one hand, I think a gun is a cowards weapon. A weapon for an amateur. I have no problem with banning them. Much like nuclear weapons. A gun is effectively a weapon of mass destruction that takes no skill or responsibility to wield/obtain. And yet it is a standard issue weapon of the day. They cannot be banned unless they are banned everywhere, and society agrees with the banning of them. There are a lot of issues to be dealt with before the weapon that often makes them worse can be banned effectively.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
For one thing the rest of the military would take said general out. Not to mention the fact that our military is not large enough to supress our nation. Yours might be, if it weren't spread so thin that it appeared as chinese window paper, but ours isn't. And guns aren't illegal here, just restricted. Nor are they the only possible weapon that could be used to resist a coup attempt.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I was presenting an extreme situation.. perhaps I should of said a "successful coup"? The hypothetical was meant to represent a situation in which the government is not what you would wish it to be (to the nth degree) and, since they (hypothetically), would be the only one with guns/tanks/weapons of any sort (besides pitchforks and knives).. they would be a very difficult power to challenge.
Of course.. your right.. perhaps there are other "weapons" that a populace could resist such a thing.
And yah.. so I thought.. yet I infered from I.D.s statement that they were banned (since he was responding to a statement I made concerning the banning of guns).
I have no problem with "restrictions".. I don't want some 13 year old kid walking around with a gun-- heck, I wouldn't want a 29 year old walking around with a gun-- but, like you said, I too would liken them to nuclear weapons.. and as such, I don't believe there is any way to dissolve the danger of them unless everyone is willing to get rid of them (government included).
Anything less and, IMO, it would be similar to the US saying:
"Hey.. we're going to give up our nuclear weapons.. but we "trust" that you will think about getting rid of yours-- or, at the very least, won't use them against us."
It comes down to this: if you ban law abiding sane people from owning firearms then only law-breaking insane people will own them. Is that really a good idea?
Also, last time I checked the US lead the world in two things among highly developed societies: violence and fundamentalist religiosity. Maybe there's no causitive correlation there, but it's a fun fact. More to the point, it seems that if we truly increase education violence will go down even more.
There are a lot more "possibily non-causitive correlative fun facts" that I could state that would make it appear as if "violence and fundemtnalist religiosity" are somehow related to high GDPs and technological ingenuity.
Probably not.
Oh.. and regarding my earlier statement.. I'm just being ridiculous.
I see where you're going with this, but I just don't think that Dr. Strangelove would have had the same impact if it took place in Canada.
Getting back on track, let's say a crazed American general stages a successful coup. I wonder how well the American people will do defending themselves against air to surface missiles, napalm and long-range mortar fire with rifles and sidearms. Don't get me wrong, those things are great for pegging the guy who wants to take your stereo. Against the most powerful and tactically brilliant military on the planet, not so much.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
Brother, you just blew my mind.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
You were presenting an impossible situation, not an extreme situation.
It doesn't matter how you might have said it, the result is the same: Impossible.
Which only shows you know little to nothing about Canadian politics, military, allies, social structure, or anything else. The situation is 100% impossible. The most a coup attempt could accomplish is division of the country. Much like if Texas decided it didn't want to be a state anymore.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
If auto-rifles were given to every adult, imagine how many more people would kill their spouse during a fight, how many more depressed people would have an easy way to commit suicide and how many more road rage shootings there would be?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Since all this would be happening within the US-- every plane has its base, every missile its radar. And no matter how hard it may be to storm a base with sidearms and hunting rifles..... I'm sure it'd be so much more so with a kitchen cutting knife and a broom handle.
But yah.. all just speculation. Heh.
Good movie.
Exactly. The US military is probably just about the most effective conventional warfare power anywhere right now, but it's not as good at asymmetric situations, those where it's fighting small dispersed forces in areas with good hiding places, like jungles and cities, and that's exactly the kind of resistance a takeover like a coup would meet.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
The road rage alone would pretty much wipe out the entire state of New Jersey, if there were no gun laws.
It's a tough call to make. If someone wants a gun, they'll get one, regardless if its legal or not. It's not like banning drugs stopped anyone from getting high.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I know a sufficient amount about Canada politics, military, allies, and so forth.. these things do not preclude me from making a hypothetical.
You say it is 100% impossible.. yet, the only thing I would say that is 100% impossible are things that are physically impossible-- for instance, it's impossible for me to fly.
Therefore, what would be the purpose of a making this hypothetical: what if I COULD fly? (Although maybe, someday, we'll figure out to do this to.
This particular hypothetical, concerning a coup, is not 100% impossible.. just improbable-- I'd agree with that.. just as its improbable to occur here.
Nevertheless, there are lesser degrees of an "overreaching government"-- and I would still contend that part of the purpose for the second amendment was to check against this.
And how exactly would Texas protect its decision to do this if the only people armed were of the Texas National Guard?
Against a military force such as the U.S... conventional tactics probably wouldn't work. And thus, if the populace was unarmed, it would be an armed military force forcing the country's will (a country that, within this hypothetical, the state no longer wishes to be a part of) on an unarmed populace.
Once again I will state that the fear isn't necessary of military coup or the protection of ones own states freedom-- just a general check.
Here's a paraphrased quote from a bumper stick.. probably from an NRA one.. but nonetheless representative:
"Representative democracy is the flock electing a wolf (in sheep's clothing) to decide what's for dinner. Liberty is when the flock is armed."
..the thought of a duck with a gun is beyond me. Heh.
This article found of digg might be anecdotal but still, some might find it interesting:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
Here is another article, definitely biased, but nevertheless, interesting:
http://www.drudge.com/news/93463/self-defense-switzerland#more
The world would be a lot less violent if the only weapon that existed was the rolling pin-- yet, until that time, it's all (IMO) a matter of cost/benefits.
I think that a gun ban is stupid for a lot of reasons. First is of course it won’t work. There is a drug ban and you can still get drugs anywhere. The only things a gun ban will do are put billions of dollars into the black market and give the government another excuse to try and invade your privacy. Meanwhile, people who engage in mass killings will still be able to get guns. I don’t know what makes people think that if there is a gun ban then guns will disappear, it doesn’t work that way.
Second, you don’t become safer by disarming yourself. They have a gun ban at Virginia Tech and it didn’t save anyone. Maybe if they didn’t have a gun ban somebody on campus would have been strapped and they could have shot the guy before he wasted 32 people. Victim disarmament (which is all a gun ban is) is great for the perpetrators and it sucks for everyone else.
And third, if you can’t defend yourself who the hell do you think is going to protect you? The police stood there for hours while this guy clipped nearly three dozen people. Not only will the police not protect you, they have no legal obligation to protect you. That was decided in Warren v District of Columbia almost thirty years ago.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
So your reasoning is that a citizenship thwarting a military coup with rifles and sidearms is slightly less impossible that doing it with kitchen knives and broom handles. You're right of course, but kind of missing the point.
The best way a citzenship can protect themselves against a situation like this is by voting, keeping informed and keeping their government accountable when they fail. That's a hard thing to do, but it's better than sitting in the dark clutching a firearm waiting for the invitable day of judgement.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
That only works in a democracy. In fact, it assumes that democracy is in place, which is contrary to the notion of a military coup.
I don't think there are any people here who would advocate overthrowing a democracy by force of arms.
No one is advocating this.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Furthermore, it is not underheard of within american history for a democractically elected president to take upon some of the militaristic attributes.
While many people, today, may not agree with the current president (some may even call him a dictator).. what he has done is nothing compared to what President Lincoln did during the civil war.
Sure.. looking back now.. one might say he was justified (the surpreme court didn't think so some time later), yet nevertheless it shows that it can happen.
It would only take a certain amount of fear for a president to enact sweeping change that would change some of the necessary attributes for a democracy as it is now.
And when the fear is gone.. whose to say he must give it back?
Heh.. and yes.. no one is advocating that-- at least I'm not.
I'm always prepared for this time of the year. It's my mom's birthday, after all. Here's why it's hard to forget today's date:
Hitler was born on 4/20.
4/20 is the date of the Columbine shooting.
Eight days before 4/20 is the aniversary of the W. R. Myers High School shooting
But here's today's news:
There's an armed man barricaded inside one of the NASA buildings.
My old high school and college are on alert from threats of violence.
What is it about 4/20 that pisses people off?
Here's an article that makes a lot of good points on the issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
Well, considering one of my sisters has a birthday on that date...
I say nothing of the sort. In fact, I said the opposite in my first post in this thread. Lets go look at that shall we?
There you have it, I said it won't be solved overnight but rather decreased as people won't be able to kill someone across the street while simultaniously scratching their own arse. Gun crime won't be gone completely as there'll always be a black market, but it will be decreased.
Second ammendment was from a different time and a different type of government. It is losing its relevance on a daily basis similarly to laws and rules of the bible losing their relevance in todays society.
Why do I get a sense of deja vu? Oh right, because that is word for word what I said in the post you replied to. If you didn't quote out of context you would have seen my answer. Furthermore, I wasn't accusing you of being a theist or having any political persuasion, once again you're putting words in my mouth and I would appreciate it if you would stop doing that. I was simply stating that the argument you were making is one seen very regularly by theists, I then explained why I thought that and what I thought was wrong with that argument.
A decent political system should never EVER get in to a situation where the public should want to rebel like that. If you have that little faith in your governmental system that you feel the public needs to be able to overthrow it, I'd say you have MUCH larger problems on your hands.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Any laws put in place to remove guns would be along the lines of every other country that has enacted such laws. I can't speak for other countries as I don't know their gun laws but in this country only the armed forces are allowed fully automatic weapons. Nobody else has a legitimate reason for them.
There are also strict rules on other types of weapons including pistols and rifles in regards to what type, size etc the public are allowed to own. You can still get a permit to buy and own certain pistols and rifles. Farmers are allowed rifles, members of gun clubs can own pistols and rifles once they're acredited. There are very strict rules for both farmers and gun club members as to how the weapon is to be secured, transported, when and where you are allowed to use it and transport it around. You would still be able to have a weapon for hunting if you abide by those rules.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
"A decent political system", I believe, is the key phrase here.
By implication, if ever the populace "needed" to overthrow the government it would not be "a decent political system".
Anycase.. I think I addressed this earlier.
People say that the second amendment "was for a different time and a different place"-- but it's just an assertion-- or, at the best, an opinion based upon evidence.
Yet, I believe I addressed this as well in an earlier post..
While it is a fact that 1776 was "a different time and a different place"-- this is not to say that the reasons for which the 2nd amendment was instated are not still applicable today.
To argue so would be a legal matter (or a personal matter); but, whichever the case, the matter is far from being concluded as objectively absolute in one way or the other.
As for your statement concerning "every tom dick and harry"-- to some extent I agree. Yet the ease by which an normal criminal (as opposed to just organized crime, e.g. in Ozland) is made much easier by the fact that we have a southern border with Mexico.
The Ozland doesn't need to worry about that.. nor does the EU to great extent.
I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your position, but I was responding to your response to me which claimed that this was one of thousands of incidents which could be "easily averted". I didn't notice that you had posted earlier in the thread, and your later statement, the one that I was responding to, wasn't qualified at all. You didn't provide any more context than that.
My point is that banning defensive weapons would have a downside, and that we should not reevaluate these laws in the context of high emotional passion such as in the aftermath of a major shooting like this.
One thing you have to realize is that you hear about the major shootings, but you don't hear about the people who fend off attackers with weapons they were legally allowed to have. It tends to distort the picture somewhat. These types of shootings are rare here, but they do happen from time to time.
So, what I hear you saying is that Australians are completely defenseless against the well-armed agents of organized crime.
That just doesn't happen very much. And this recent shooting was anything but a casual act; It appears the shooter planned it for weeks, which means he could have rewritten his plans to use explosives if guns weren't available.
Because you're repeating yourself. Really, I don't see how what you said is responsive to what I said at all. Sorry.
I really don't see where I've quoted you out of context.
You accused me of making a theistic argument, which I didn't. And, if you read the posts following yours, you'll notice that I wasn't the only one who took it that way. I made a political point, and I don't even understand what connected it with theism for you. If that was a mistake, fine, whatever, but I would appreciate a less inflammatory attitude.
Theists often argue that they need guns for their protection? Really? Look, regardless of whether or not theists make such comments a lot, perhaps it would be more constructive to comment on what I said, not what you want to call it.
I don't think anyone has ever created a system of government that completely precludes corruption, and even if they did, you can't rule out foreign invasion, nor can you rule out radical groups overthrowing the government. If we lived in that kind of utopia, there would be no need of any weapons, military or civilian.
Consider this hypothetical. I think within the next 50 years there may be the real possability of powerful Islamic radicals attempting to overthrow democratic governments in Europe. What if one of them succeeds? Should the people be defenseless against their newly imposed theocracy as it imposes Sharia?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
It makes your hypothetical completely impossible, and completely pointless. And you obviously do not know anything like enough about Canada to make such foolish assertions.
Because it is.
It is physically impossible for a coup to take over Canada.
Same goes for a military coup in Canada.
Same goes for your hypothetical here. You might as well be asking "what if I could fly?" You can't, so there's no point in discussing it.
Not unassisted. Best we can do is fall.
Yes it is.
Wrong. It is not physically, politically, militarily, socially, or theoretically possible in any way.
If you take away the guns from the military, then they can't use them against you in a coup now can they?
You think the US would march into Texas and conquer it? That's against the very principals the US is based on. It would turn into civil war.
They've worked well enough in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.