Gun comments

I like point 21.

>>>>> 18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
>>>>> 19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
>>>>> 20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
>>>>> 21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries
>>>>> to control them.
>>>>> 22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
>>>>> 23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't
>>>>> make more.
>>>>> 24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you
>>>>> create slaves.
>>>>> 25. The American Revolution would never have happened with
>>>>> gun control.

 

Are you trying to say that the British are slaves?

Point 20 is flawed, guns don't cause crimes, they facilitate them in exactly the same way matches facilitate arson.

22 is equally flawed on the basis that it implies anything is your right if you fight for it hard enough.

 

No, the British are Zombies haven't you seen Shawn of the Dead?

No more flawed than suggesting that the presence or lack of police do the same. The question to ask is: Has crime per capita gone up, down, or remained the same in Britain (or elsewhere) when gun laws are changed or ownership restricted?

On a singular basis, yes. As a society, no. If society deems something a right then it is regardless of what that may be.

On the whole, Chrome's original post is simply retoric and should be regarded as such rather than taken as absolute maxims of some sort.

 

Ah, the famous 2nd Amendment...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and arm Bears, shall not be infringed."

 

Dam right!!

 

Chrome you just love to put up the controversial stuff.

I think they should make it easier to get a good paying job than to buy a gun at Wal-Mart.

I guess next you will put up stuff on abortion, gay rights, politics, drugs, and rock and roll.

 

I think anyone who doesn't have a criminal record should have the right to own a gun, but I also think most people should consider if they really need to use that right... What I'm saying is, there are so many people, especially in the US, who own guns without really needing them for anything. And every gun, even when put away in a drawer, is a potential murder weapon, say in the case a burgler steals it and uses it later. I think the fewer guns there are in circulation, the better for everyone. Crime isn't going to be prevented by arming up against it.

Neverteheless, I do believe it is the right of any non-criminal to judge if he/she really needs a gun for either protection, hunting, or whatever cause. But automatic weapons for civilians doesn't sound right to me, whatever the circumstances...

[ 05. January 2007, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Lord of War ]

 

No, the British are Zombies haven't you seen Shawn of the Dead? </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, I resemble that remark! Some of my best friends are zombies

We have had gun control for a fair while and from what I recall crime with stolen or legally held guns has indeed gone down, gun crime has gone up in line with other crime rates however. On the other hand, accidental shootings of family members, innocent bystanders and so on have dropped significantly since gun control was introduced and I'd regard that as pretty important (worth noting actually, statistically speaking guns kept for self defense are far more likely to wind up hurting a family member than to be involved in preventing a crime).

I'd disagree, taking onboard the idea of natural and inaliable rights (as discribed in your own constitution). I would say the right to gun ownership is as you discribe, able to be removed by society. I would however argue that some truths are self evident, that all men are created equal and that they have certain rights that exist beyond the control of society (like the right to life). But let's leave that one as it's a philosophical quagmire

 

'The only way you'll get a Democracy in this country is to shoot a few people !'

 

God created man.
Sam Colt made them equal.

 

Martin, the man in your photo if not the Mahatma who is he?

 

Big long way from The Mahatma za.
'Alf Garnett' would be your search-term of choice.
I suspect he's a very British joke though.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

God Bless Alf Garnett. The real bigots in Britain never realised writer Johnny Speight was taking the piss out of 'em!

 

I see, the Limey version of Archie Bunker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Bunker

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066626/

 

I see Garnett was the inspiration for Bunker, curse this brain-drain.
This is all a long way from guns though .

I like the look of the statistics for Canada, Very high ownership of Automatic weapons combined with an exceptionally low murder rate. What are they doing right then?

Living in a country where the press has a moral panic over penknives, an attempt was made to ban de-acs and the gun laws are frankly arbitrary I'm just secretly bitter that we're hardly allowed any firearms fun outside of smoothbore and black powder.
Isn't black powder pretty much unregulated in the states?

Cheers,
Adam

 

And yet there are massive holes in our legislation, it's illegal to own a pistol unless it's in an obsoleet caliber for example. Weird....

 

Guess they figure it'll be hard to get ammo for and would be easier to trace if said gun was used in a crime.

 

In that case I'm surprised the local drug dealers haven't had their Mac-10s and AK47s re-chambered for 8mm pinfire....

 

My point exactly, ammo can be a pain to get hold of but if I wanted to walk into a shop with say a Martini Henry or something similar it wouldn't be too hard.

Speaking of firearms, had this flagged up for me earlier:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab60662ad6

[ 07. January 2007, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Stefan ]

 

Uncle Ted, ( Nugent ) said; sure I believe in gun control, putting the 2nd bullet in the same hole as the 1st one is perfect gun control.