Author Topic: How many feel that their countries gun laws are too strict... (Read 2981 times)

RTR · « **Reply #30 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:53:37 AM »

Gun registration.......cash grab.

Having to federally register a firearm ensures only one thing.

Most gun owners will be criminals. (the idea being that having to shell out a considerable $$ amount to register the weapon, will not sit well with most and they will not register).

Forced federal registration is just yet another blatant cash grab.
It does nothing to-reduce the number of fire arm related crime. On the contrary, it turns normal law abiding, responsible gun owners into criminals for failing to register.

RTR

Ripsnort · « **Reply #31 on:** February 05, 2004, 12:08:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
This right or privilage, or call it what you will, has a cost and that cost is measured in human lives. We may all debate the number of lives or the value of lives or the acceptability of the cost but its unit of measure is always the same.

yep, just like the LACK of being armed can be measured in human lives, just click the link below:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html

Stats from the U.S. Dept of Justice

Bodhi · « **Reply #32 on:** February 05, 2004, 12:11:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
....registering your guns is not required in most states (no matter how much the news media wants to make it apear that it is).
the first step to taking the guns from the general population is to create a list of where they all are, so registering guns is a bad idea....

Regardless of state law, gun registration is required by federal law at point of sale, and while not required as yet in personal transactions, it is going to be by 2006, and will probably be done in 2005.

While disagreeing over the registration issue, I do agree with the statement regarding the purpose of gun registration, and will stand by the age old statement concerning the attempt to take said weapons...

"They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand."

'nuff said?

capt. apathy · « **Reply #33 on:** February 05, 2004, 12:28:51 PM »

I guess I have about a year to fill out my collection.

beet1e · « **Reply #34 on:** February 05, 2004, 03:06:58 PM »

I think the UK gun laws are OK as far as I'm concerned. I could buy a shotgun, and keep it in a big green safe like the one Lazs has in his back room, but I haven't even done that. I have no need for a gun.

Having said that, it's fair to say that gun law enforcement needs beefing up. Still too many guns around. On Dec. 26th, a policeman was shot dead by a man who turned out to be an American on the run from Florida. There was a newspaper article about that, and it made the point that the police would have much more to deal with if the supply of guns to the public was unrestricted, and made mention of the fact that gang leaders are often thwarted by the fact that they can't get hold of guns to use as tools of their evil trade.

I was going to post a link about this, but realised that the thread might draw in Mr. Toad, whose squad was about to suffer a bereavement. Not a good time for a Toad-Beet1e chain yanking thread, so I didn't post.

Sandman · « **Reply #35 on:** February 06, 2004, 02:03:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
the second amendment doesn't say "the right to bear arms shall not be abolished", it says the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed . that is how the laws are unconstitutional.

No, it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not certain that the meaning is necessarily the same without the first part.

Here's an interesting read: http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm

It addresses many of the points for and some against a strong 2nd Amendment but doesn't seem to be arguing either particular side of the discussion.

Tarmac · « **Reply #36 on:** February 06, 2004, 02:24:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No, it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The meaning isn't necessarily the same without the first part.

A lot of people also forget that at the time of the Constitution, the militia consisted of every able-bodied male age 16 to 60, possessing whatever firearms he saw appropriate to acquire.

Sandman · « **Reply #37 on:** February 06, 2004, 02:27:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
A lot of people also forget that at the time of the Constitution, the militia consisted of every able-bodied male age 16 to 60, possessing whatever firearms he saw appropriate to acquire.

Ah... the historical argument... check out the link in my last "edited" post.

Nilsen · « **Reply #38 on:** February 06, 2004, 04:45:37 AM »

Im fairly happy with our gun _laws_ but i think there are to many guns in private hands. Alot of folks never use the guns they own licenses for and they should hand them in or sell them so they don't fall into the hands of burglars and criminal elements.

I read somewhere in the news that norway has more guns per person than in the US.

Tilt · « **Reply #39 on:** February 06, 2004, 05:49:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
yep, just like the LACK of being armed can be measured in human lives, just click the link below:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html

Stats from the U.S. Dept of Justice

Typical selective BS arguement.

You can go here

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

These are the actual published UK government figures. Not some selection taking a nice curve finishing in 97 ignoring that both governments complie stats totally differently and define types of crimes differently.

and when you are there you can trawl thru it all and pick up figures selectively to support both sides of a US based anti/pro gun law arguement that at the end of the day prove nothing.

What you will not find is any figure suggesting that the UK will be a safer place should guns be made available to the masses on a US model.

UK and US are so radically different in view of gun related history, culture and mind set that comparing the two is just total folly.

The US has a gun culture, the UK does not. Hence banning guns here was a comparatively small step easily done. Nationally it was in the news for a couple of weeks then comparably forgotten.

It would take many generations for the US to approach the UK non gun culture and only then after a core change in the US psyche such that it wanted to. (which IMO will not happen) And after that several generations before any gun control even became effective.

Switch on any local radio in the US and you will hear a news report of a gun related crime........ it is not reported as an extremely unusual event........its reported as just news.

The point I am making is that in the US fire arms are part of a way of life that many hold dear and wish to preserve. Further to hold onto that way of life, the cost (measured in lives lost) is considered acceptable.

beet1e · « **Reply #40 on:** February 06, 2004, 10:17:42 AM »

Tilt - Spot on.

Tarmac · « **Reply #41 on:** February 06, 2004, 10:20:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Ah... the historical argument... check out the link in my last "edited" post.

Good find. Saved. Lots of good arguments and evidence in there.

Classifying my argument (it fits into the Doctrinal category as well - McReynolds decision) doesn't detract from its validity, though.

lazs2 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 06, 2004, 10:34:38 AM »

tilt... so what has disarming your populace done for you? Has it decreased crime? Has it made for less homicides in your country? Does it make you feel safer if on the news you never hear about shootings but instead the murders are commited with knives or axes or bats or... whatever?

I hear about shootings all the time hear if I listen to the news. They are usually far far away from me but even if they aren't... they pose no real threat.... On the other hand....

when I was in england..... there were signs everywhere to watch pout for pickpockets and thieves... even my evening out at the movies was subjected to warnings at the box office and a "commercial" that warned me to be on my toes at all times...

Now... you tell me... which is more obtrusive... Getting shot is like getting hit by lightning for the vast majority of us here in the U.S. but your crime is very intrusive in your daily lives.

sooo.... you gain nothing by getting rid of firearms but.... you "feel" safer? Do the "watch out for pickpockets" signs make you feel safer?

lazs

CyranoAH · « **Reply #43 on:** February 06, 2004, 01:07:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

sooo.... you gain nothing by getting rid of firearms but.... you "feel" safer? Do the "watch out for pickpockets" signs make you feel safer?
lazs

If I take precautions, I'm pretty sure no pickpocket is going to pull out a gun at me. Not even a knife for that matter.

If I lived in the States, I would surely buy a gun... knowing myself, probably more than one.
In Spain? No thanks. I prefer having gun laws right as they are now.

It's not a question of money, it's a question of "really" being into guns. If you really enjoy going plinkin', I assure you there are ways to do so in Spain, but it's a slow and thorough process.

Daniel

Tilt · « **Reply #44 on:** February 06, 2004, 02:14:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

The UK populace was never "armed" as you put it lazs from which we have never been disarmed. We never had mass ownership of side arms.

No1 weapon of homicide is a knife/sharp object by a factor of 100 times.........followed by poisen (well for 2002 any way due to one mass murderer now recorded with over 200 deaths to his name) followed by blunt instruments.............I think cars are counted for several times the number of homicdes than firearms.

"crime" did decrease over 97 to 2001 when it went up and then down again but various subgroups are all over the place you can use the figures to prove any thing except that we (GB)would be safer with more guns

Also in those UK figures firearms in clude air powered arms which account for upto 60% of that sector!

They overwhelming weapon in "violent robberies" in the UK is the fist or the boot.

There are no signs every where saying beware of pickpockets (London museums football matches maybe ........any one?) and the very thought that guns could or would even be thought to be used as a solution to pickpockets is just such an absolute non starter here...........we would think you utterly insane!

Very few sane Brits would actually feel safer in the UK because they were carrying a weapon. The notion itsself is just incredible...............

Actually I do feel safer in the UK than I do when I'm in the US........ Its not any great distinction and I think it is some thing to do with being a "stranger in a strange land".

I'll be at a convention in Chicago in early March. Am I going for a walk down town? Should I worry about getting lost in some of its suburbs? You tell me.............

But its not really the point is it? I believe that if we have gun law in the UK (which I support) then the penalties for breaking it should be draconian.......very harsh and apply to every one.

But as I say the US and the UK are light years away from each other in this respect............your pickpocket analogy shows this.........if we just had a conversation on how the two nations define "self defence" you may see the gulf between our out looks.

Fire arms are not an emotive issue to the average Brit. The great bulk of the population have never touched one........never mind wanted one.

To turn a Texan saying on its head................."its a Brit thing you probably wouldn't understand"