Gun control for dummies

Yep...eight to the baa-ar!

 

Nice quote, with wider ramifications than the purely US sphere.

This. +1

I'm an Englishman, and our relationship with guns/licensing is, I feel, a tad peculiar and often based on short-term reactions to specific events. Yet the reactions to other countries' ownership/laws can be more peculiar still.
I know/knew chaps with AR15s & Barrett .50s legally held in the UK, but good lord they have to jump through some hoops to get 'em (and I shall be heading to their locales when the Zombies come, straight pull or not). Maybe get our own house into some sort of logical/consistent order before attacking others.
I find guns interesting, and the chaps I know who hold are on the whole very 'straight' personalities, or use them as tools for work; always seems a shame that their legit/sporting interests are regularly hampered by the actions of certain mad dogs, and a knee-jerk political unwillingness to go beyond a tabloid view of the whole business.
You can't legislate away the mad dog - many have tried, never succeeded.
I don't really follow why our meeja etc. tuts so strongly at any US gun reference, and heads down certain inevitable paths of enquiry. It seems so culturally smug to my eye.
Everything is more complex than at face value - If I were a septic and my ownership of firearms was threatened, I'd be immensely uncomfortable that while any such curtailment removed weapons from normal people; it seems likely that every crim would still be carrying in a land where guns have been easily available for so long.
Entirely appropriate for me to answer those intermittent night-time house noises with the old WW1 Trench-club (though I think being stark naked was a more effective weapon on one memorable occasion), but if the noises turned out to be real in the US, I'd want to be carrying something a tad more serious than Burglar Bill might have chosen. Burglar Bill not, by nature, being known for his adherence to rules & guidelines.
Same for the Saffas - If I lived there, I would doubtless own some quite advanced 'defensive' weaponry, and couldn't blame anyone else who did, given the overall crime situation.

Whatever. Finlandia-fuelled rambling, but I find it hard to judge another country's specific issues with bang-sticks. Sxxt happens, and it's too easy to immediately blame the first possible factor which springs to mind without placing things in the wider/historical context.

~A

 

I think not. If one follows these things, and I do, you start to see patterns. Probably the best example is what is known in the US as a "home invasion." In the US, the great majority of burglaries occur during the day when the occupants are not home. A non-violent crime. A non-confrontational crime. While in the UK, most burglaries happen at night - what we would call a "home invasion." The occupants risk assault, rape, whatever, since they are unarmed.

The difference (and there have been polls taken of imprisoned criminals asking this very question), is that a criminal in the US knows that he risks getting shot if he enters a home while it is occupied. Criminals are by definition stupid, but not so stupid that they'll risk getting shot when they can commit the same crime on an unoccupied home. The UK criminal has no such fear.

A better example is the study I mentioned comparing Seattle and Vancouver. These are neighboring cities with very similar demographics, but violent crime (other than murder) are much higher in Vancouver. There are more rapes, more assaults, more home invasions - right down the line.

A criminal that doesn't have to fear a gun is far more brazen than one that does.

 

On the lighter side:

Snowstorm In Chicago Delays Hundreds Of Morning Murders | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

I spent a while on worldwide gun & crime stats after the recent nastiness at that school. Pleasant enough argument with a mate.

Came to the conclusion that you can 'prove' anything you like by country when you mix murder/suicide rates, ownership levels etc. whether for or against. Really easy area to draw fairly simplistic conclusions while avoiding the more complex possibilities.

 

It is fun to post from the satirical humor site and magazine "The Onion", but it should be posted in Jokes, not in a discussion on crime statistics. Unless of course you believe the Onion is "real"?

 

Lighten up.

 

Of course this is their problem and theirs to take care of. Still this is a forum for conversation and changing thoughts - for everybody. Or have I misunderstood something? I haven't been discussing about this before. If somebody else has, does it mean that nobody else can do it anymore?

The USA is a developed country, South Africa is not - at least not in the same way.

Sometimes/often one can see things clearer from a distance...

 

I'm aware of that, although I did not make any difference on whether defending the nation (the people of it) against a foreign enemy or a domestic one.

Still, I cannot see any need for practicly ANYBODY having access to ALL kinds of weapons. I do not object all guns categoricly, being a reserve officer of the FDF myself.

 

Wasn't aimed at you Karjala, it was aimed at the thread. Seems to me lots of us need to lighten up. And thats not aimed at you either. Not one thing we say on this thread will alter gun ownership in America or for that matter SA. Not one American will be swayed by any argument by any one outside America. The forum is indeed a discussion area for all with no overly censoring of any subject that does not cause offence or legal problems to others that I can see.
No one is stopping anyone from discussing anything. But I won't be silenced by anyone either. If I think my case is worth standing by then I will stand by it. Everyone else is entitled to the same. It was not me who told you to take note of my post but others. I couldn't give a flying sheep if you did or not. Stand by your words by all means but if anyone thinks anyone is influenced by any statements on here into changing their pre conceived ideas and thoughts..then I'm a dodo.

 

Understood. I was not trying to silence you but felt, that myself was being silenced...

 

See, no censorship here!

 

So I'm a dodo.....Great...Its disconcerning when you find out where you rest on the ladder...I'm just above Poppy and he's standing on my foot...

Karjala...Its a language thing...And I will be first to admit as I have to another poster recently...that my use of English to my foreign cousins could be better...Even Von Poop has to convert my English to English.

As with KB...I wish to offend nobody. When I do I should be told...And Belasar does...I think.

 

Well, English is not my native language - as one might have already guessed...

 

Whoop whoop whoop Three Stooges Curly " Certainly, Whoop, Whoop, Whoop, Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk" - YouTube, my ears are burning. Yes, we have no guns.

 

Well... "Rights" (as defined in our Constitution) are not based on "need" so such an argument doesn't apply. The simplest definition is quite simply things the government does not have the power to prohibit. The government can not prohibit free speech or free exercise of religion or the right to trial or... guns. It isn't a suggestion or something that can be voted away or even something that can be removed through the constitutional amendment process - rights can be expanded - blacks were freed and women were granted the vote, etc, but you can't remove a right once established.

That doesn't mean that you can't regulate things in some way - obviously, if your religion involves human sacrifice, you couldn't infringe on the victims rights to practice your religion. There are practical limits.

With guns, since it is linked to a citizens militia (the body of the people is the militia) then you're talking about military arms. To prohibit purchase of an AR15 is a direct infringement of both the spirit and the letter of the 2nd amendment.

On the other hand, law also establishes that one can lose their rights in a criminal conviction. Obviously, when you imprison someone you are removing their rights. And once freed, certain limits still apply. Felons can not vote in most states. And felons can not own firearms in any state. This (in my opinion) is where the train goes off the tracks. 70% of all firearms murders are committed by felons (stats provided earlier in this thread), yet federal courts refuse to enforce "felon caught with a gun" crimes. Since felons know they won't face any meaningful penalty for possessing a gun, they have no fear of doing so. If the courts would enforce the mandatory ten year sentence attached to that crime, you'd see an immediate drop in gun crime rates. Cops take guns away from felons every day, and those felons are right back out on the street shortly thereafter. There are no meaningful consequences for a felon carrying a gun, so they do so up until they kill someone.

 

You sell yourself far too short my good man...I would hope that a good arguement, no matter who makes it, has some weight amongst intelligent, open minded people. We have a long history of listening to the experience and wisdom gained from our elders, because we beleive they know what they are talking about...doesnt need age to be thought of as knowledgable or wise...for what its worth, i put great store on your words Sir...You've made me reconsider on many occasions.

 

What he said.