Author Topic: How many feel that their countries gun laws are too strict... (Read 3057 times)

Stoned Gecko · « **Reply #90 on:** February 09, 2004, 01:55:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Clearly you didn't watch enough Looney Toons when you were young.

No, I didn't ... so I'm trying to catch up now that I'm not so young

Dune · « **Reply #91 on:** February 09, 2004, 02:02:17 PM »

To Curval - It depends on how you read the Bill of Rights. The Second Amnd, like the first, say that the gov't shall not infringe on a right held by the people. It does not give them the right, it prohibits the gov't from screwing with a right the people already had.

And "I'm going to love him and squeeze him and call him George.".

To Ravells - The only WW2 FPS I've played is Day of Defeat. And that's been awhile. From what I remember, the rates of fire seemed to be pretty close. One thing I do remember is that for some reason the K98 Mauser did more damage than the M1 Garand. Which was silly. Whatever differences in velocity, weight of bullet and energy existed (and I couldn't tell you without looking it up) would be so minimal as to be irrelavent in terms of killing power.

Stoned Gecko · « **Reply #92 on:** February 09, 2004, 02:09:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
Good point Gecko, although you have to factor in whether someone who might want to buy a gun on a whim would do so if they were not so easy to buy.

I was thinking more of 'spur of the moment gun crimes' resulting in multiple killings, like Columbine or crimes of passion etc rather than criminals to whom the gun is a tool of their trade.

Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, the Columbine kids didn't not own the guns legally. Even now, if you want to shoot someone in spur of the moment you're not gonna go by the weapon legally. Still gotta wait 3 days. So illegal weapons are still the best source. Crimes of passion is another topic. However with spur of the moment a criminal would usually seek a weapon that's readilly available ... and not neccessarily a gun, but a knife, or a car, or a baseball bat. And even then a gun ban makes no difference. Turning a shooting into stabbing does not help anyone. A person still dies.

I think in this case it's best to think of premeditated VS spur of the moment (I can't think of the antonym for premeditated ... English is not my first language

). If a crime is premeditated, obtaining a weapon to commit the crime will be part of the plan. If that plan calls for a gun, a gun will be obtained ... probably not legally anyway.

Quote

I do have a sad feeling that Lasz might be right about the proliferation of unlicensed weapons being used for crime in the UK reaching such a high volume that at some point law abiding citizens will pass laws for 'concealed carry' here. We are still some way from that point (and I hope we never get there), although I think the US has passed that point by the sheer number of guns floating around in the country.

Although we still have a relatively small incidence of illegal gun ownership compared to you lot, the number appears to be rising (just IMHO - I have not seen any numbers on this).

For the first time in our history, a couple of weeks ago (I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned by the pro gun lobby here) someone with a gun held up diners in a swanky restaurant in London and relieved them of their valuables. My fear is that with the press coverage it received copy cat crimes will follow.

I still don't think we need concealed carry in the UK, but that is something which should always be under review.

Ravs

Curval · « **Reply #93 on:** February 09, 2004, 02:16:44 PM »

Well okay Mr. Semantics...

Dune, logically those who were living in the United States, other than Native Indians, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights came from somewhere else. Many, if not MOST of these people were from the Euro"nanny" countries who did not formally have the codified "right" to bear arms.

So...my read is that the Bill of Rights is granting this "right" to those who didn't have it before.

I just cannot see it the other way.

lazs2 · « **Reply #94 on:** February 09, 2004, 02:44:38 PM »

curval... you personally have given up nothing since your rights were deprived before you were born but... the right to defend yuourself is an inherant right... it is also a right that Uk citizens had for most of their history... it is only relatively recently that they have been deprived of them..

ravells... you make my point quite well.... I know what it feels like to shoot WWII firearms because... well... I do it. Saturday I went over to my gun safe 10' from my puter in my home and took out an M1Garrand and a 1911 style 45 auto plus a Walther PPk I coulda took a smelly (brit 303) or borrowed my brothers 91 naggant...but... I went upstairs to the loading bench and got a couple hundred rounds of ammo and packed it all int to Hell Caminio and drove to the range.... coulda went to my brothers house in the country tho...

The guns probly cost me a grand or 2 and the ammo I shot up was probly about 20 buks worth... range fees fifty cents with my membership.... outdoor range...

If you lived here you could have your own or go with me and then you would know.... If it was fun.... you could simply buy your own smelly or naggant for maybe 150 bucks each and have at it.

beetle.... I am shocked as I know all the other Americans are on this board that a liberal newspaper would run anti gun articles.... this must surely mean that the entire country is against firearms ownership.

lazs

Tarmac · « **Reply #95 on:** February 09, 2004, 03:18:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Well okay Mr. Semantics...

Dune, logically those who were living in the United States, other than Native Indians, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights came from somewhere else. Many, if not MOST of these people were from the Euro"nanny" countries who did not formally have the codified "right" to bear arms.

So...my read is that the Bill of Rights is granting this "right" to those who didn't have it before.

From the English Bill of Rights, 1689:

"7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

It wasn't a foreign concept when the US Constitution was written, although there's probably as much controversy about "as allowed by law" as there is about "a well-regulated militia" and the definition of "infringed" in the US Bill of Rights. But Americans didn't invent it the idea - the English codified it before we were a nation.

No one to blame but yourselves.

Curval · « **Reply #96 on:** February 09, 2004, 03:25:45 PM »

Okay...let's now see the German codification, the Dutch codification, the Swedish codification, etc etc etc..smarty pants.

and what if I am Catholic? I mean those rights are extended to Protestants only.

lazs2 · « **Reply #97 on:** February 09, 2004, 03:35:10 PM »

at various times in all countries that I know about.... ciizens were allowed to go around armed and to defend themselves.... it is usually only fearful tyrants who remove these intrinsic rights from time to time...

course now that we have allowed women to tell us what we can do.... It is no longer just tyrants that want to see us disarmed.

tyrants and women... the former do it out of fear of their citizens and the latter do it out of ignorance and emotion. comes out the same.

no offense to you curval since you live in a bubble in what is basicly a medium sized ammusment park and as such, aren't prone to the same difficulties as a real nation.

lazs

Tarmac · « **Reply #98 on:** February 09, 2004, 03:39:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Okay...let's now see the German codification, the Dutch codification, the Swedish codification, etc etc etc..smarty pants.

and what if I am Catholic? I mean those rights are extended to Protestants only.

The idea was to show that the idea wasn't originally American. I'm moderately well versed in American law, have basic knowledge of British, and know next to nothing about those of other countries. While there were colonists from all over the world here, the ones who laid the foundation here were primarily English, English decendants, or had studied in England. As such, it's no surprise that they drew heavily from the English Bill of Rights.

And as for Catholics, the English Bill of Rights is a shining example of the religious tolerance that springs forth when church and state start mixing.

I'm not an expert on English history by any means, but IIRC anyone who wasn't a Protestant was a 2nd class citizen - especially Catholics (or Papists, as they're called in the English Bill of Rights).

Curval · « **Reply #99 on:** February 09, 2004, 03:56:05 PM »

Of course the idea wasn't originally American. That would take original thought.

Much of that thought was done in Europe long before the existance of your country. I mean, even my bubble of a medium sized amusement park is over 200 years older than the United States.

But, your point is well taken..I'm just hacking on you.

Interesting though, because as these rights seems to have been extended to only a certian portion of the population my logic still stands that the US bill of rights was the first codification of the right to defend oneself for the ENTIRE country and ALL of its inhabitants.

ravells · « **Reply #100 on:** February 09, 2004, 03:59:07 PM »

Way I recall it, Tarmac,was that the Protestants (for example Queen Elizabeth) were quite happy to have a secualar state. The problem was that the non Prots wanted to oppress everyone under their brand of religion (for example the puritains).

Fast forward some history and this lot of malcontents who found they could go somewhere else and live in a place where they could oppress their communities in peace went to America.

The mormons spring to mind.

Where do you think your wackos came from? We exported them!

Ravs

Tarmac · « **Reply #101 on:** February 09, 2004, 04:00:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Interesting though, because as these rights seems to have been extended to only a certian portion of the population my logic still stands that the US bill of rights was the first codification of the right to defend oneself for the ENTIRE country and ALL of its inhabitants.

Might want to tell the slaves that they had the right to own guns all along.

Tarmac · « **Reply #102 on:** February 09, 2004, 04:04:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
Way I recall it, Tarmac,was that the Protestants (for example Queen Elizabeth) were quite happy to have a secualar state. The problem was that the non Prots wanted to oppress everyone under their brand of religion (for example the puritains).

Fast forward some history and this lot of malcontents who found they could go somewhere else and live in a place where they could oppress their communities in peace went to America.

The mormons spring to mind.

Where do you think your wackos came from? We exported them!

Ravs

Why did the Papists (catholics) get specifically named in your bill of rights then? Why not the puritans as well (who, I believe, are also protestant)?

Also, Mormonism sprang up entirely in the US, after independence, IIRC. I believe in the mid 1800's or so.

Curval · « **Reply #103 on:** February 09, 2004, 04:06:19 PM »

Fair point Tarmac...

Clearly there were tyrants ruling the US back then.

Curval · « **Reply #104 on:** February 09, 2004, 04:10:44 PM »

I need to do some research, but I think you guys are getting mixed up. Weren't the puritans merely really "pure" protestants? By definition "protestants" were named for there protest for being under the religious rules of the Pope...in Italy.

Tarmac...the papists weren't named...the protestants were according to your quote.