Gun control for dummies

Laws/rules/limitations/what ever. They are still made by a handful of (rather clever) men - at a certain time of the history. They are not untouchable for ever. IIRC they have already been reinterpreted and additions have been made.

I'm not a lawyer. Why do you want to hang yourselves with something written by men over 200 years ago is beyond me. "Where there's a will there's a way"

 

Sure, as always.

Personally I don't see it necessary to walk around with either a pistol or a revolver. An assault rifle made decades ago is still very usable - maybe not for the sharpshooting though.

You make a lot of smaller/less consuming American cars too, they don't have to be European. This side-step started from an H2...

 

The same goes with all countries, and probably even more so. Also the success rate of the suicide attempts must be much higher with the guns. So - less guns available, less people succeeding in killing themselves.

 

I frankly don't get all that upset about criminals killing each other. I suspect the opinion is more wide spread than you realize although it's not particularly PC to admit it. As for it not solving crime, well it doesn't solve crimes, it does cut down on the number of criminals however which one could reasonably assume cuts down on the number of crimes at least against innocents.

Is that a fact? I far from convinced. Indeed if you do a state by state analysis here in the US I suspect you would have a very hard time substantiating quite the oposite from at least some of the numbers I've seen.[

QUOTE=Karjala;649472]Seems like too many.[/quote]
Your opinion is noted and it's worth every penny I paid for it.

Really? I would say not enough have necessary guns.

How so? If you don't like that much leave if you are here or don't come. Suits me fine.

I'd have to see the exact quote. Usually it's not a problem with the police.

Neat attempt at side stepping my point. And ignoring what I said as well.

And the smaller US made cars typically have a lot of the same problems as the Eurpean and Japanese cars. There are other factors as well that mitigate against it. Like as been suggested this deserves a thread of its own.

 

If they are not untouchable, then we don't have a constitution at all. We have mob rule. We'd have a Chavez-style "democracy" where opposition press is shut down and property seized "for the good of all." If any part of the Bill of Rights is not carved in stone, then it's all up for grabs.

I don't see guns as "hanging ourselves" instead, I see a right to self defense. I don't see why you would want to be disarmed and helpless.

What you see in a biased international press is somewhat less than the truth. In fact, the average American has almost no contact with gun murder. Murder is something taking place within a very small demographic of professional criminals.

 

Bunch of assumptions embedded in that one. There are a number of ways of attempting suicide that have higher success rates than fire arms. Of course there's also a personal freedom aspect here. If someone really wants to end their life should we have the right to stop them?

I'll also note that you keep focusing on only one side of the debate and completely ignore the personal defence role of guns. A lot of these incidents indeed probably the vast majority are never captured in any statistics, the inident Kodiak mention in post 191 being a classic example. How many times have guns saved people from criminal acts? It's impossible to say but with a fair amount of work you could probably get a decent minimum estimate, I suspect it would be high enough to impress you.

 

It does not seem to work, does it, since your many prisons are still full of living criminals. This "Wild West -mentality" just lowers the limit for using guns for crimes, suicides etc.

I don't know your state by state statistics but the country by country statistics seem to say so.

 

I'm sure you would...

Didn't mean it like that. Every country - yes, even the US of A - has it's positive and negative aspects. For me the gun situation is not something which I'd find appealing.

I live in Finland and am not moving anywhere - at least for the time being...

 

You said that the guns are hard to get in the USA. Obviously not hard enough.

 

How something written by few 18th century men can be untouchable for ever is beyond me...
The appropriate rights can and have been changed during the centuries.

E.g in Finland the Constitution (Perustuslaki / "the Ground Law") can (of course) be changed. We don't have a mob rule here nor a Chavez-style democracy. The Finnish Constitution can be adjusted by two ways:

1. The current parliament accepts the suggested change to be laid down to wait by single majority. Then the next parliament after new elections can accept it by 2/3 majority.
2. The current parliament accepts the suggested change to be urgent by 5/6 majority. Then the same parliament can accept it by 2/3 majority.

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

This need for "self-defense" is mostly a myth. This urge for self protection causes more problems than it is supposed to solve. That's why.

You think the American press to be less un-biased...?

 

Maybe there are more succesful methods for suicide than fire arms, but the guns must be high on the list. For example my same age cousin shot himself with his hunting rifle. I'm not suggesting that hunting rifles should be banned, but AFAIK he did not have any serious plans for suicide, but it was just a sudden, stupid and drunken idea after a row with the girlfriend. With gun you only need to squeeze your finger - nothing more.

Most people killing themselves do not really want to be killed but somebody to help them. That's why they should be prevented from doing it.

See my previous post about this "personal defence"-issue.

Example: when the using of safety belts in cars became mandatory many people were protesting against it, because some very few individuals had been saved because of not having worn one. It also supposedly was against their "personal liberty." (Nobody however was arguing for an liberty NOT to recieve medical help after an accident while not wearing the safety belt...) Naturally the benefits of the law were so much greater that those protests did not get through.

 

Good, that's what I thought. However here I've read many posts stating "it can not be changed because it's in the Constitution".

Agreed. I just didn't know that this topic was reserved for the US citizens only...

 

No, the law is quite clearly relating to inanimate objects. You would literally be laughed out of a British court for making that argument (no offence intended)

 

Understand your point, although sometimes one can see things a bit clearer from the distance. We have a saying (maybe you have too?) about "not seeing the forest from the trees"...

Personally I don't mind people telling me what they think or what I (or my country) should do - as long as they understand, that I am (or my country is) still making my/our own decisions.

Thanks again for your kind offer. Unfortunately I'm not planning any trip over there soon, but if I do I definitely keep your offer in mind. After all I'm into history and architecture and I've understood, that you have some pretty awesome old plantasion buildings there.

 

No, what was said is that you can not remove a right under the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech, a free press, freedom to practice religion, the right to bear arms, etc, can not be removed by another amendment.

You CAN change the Constitution with amendments. For example, Senators were once appointed by state legislatures and that was changed to a popular vote. That's one example among many. There is an amendment system in place to update such things.

The Bill of Rights is a document appended to the Constitution and those freedoms are not negotiable under the amendment system. It isn't like the Weimar Republic where some demagogue can legally dissolve liberties.