lynx wrote:There aren't many who would agree with you here in the UK.
I just don't understand how the American public feels safe with so many unsecured guns around that anyone having a bad day could pick up and kill you with.
Humans have killed each other basically since the dawn of time. Unsecured weapons are everywhere. This includes rocks and sharp sticks. You are never truly 100% safe. Life just doesn't work that way.
And I'd rather work on measures that make people actually more safe than measures that merely make people feel more safe. Hell, those more of those(ie, the TSA, etc) we get rid of, the happier I'll be.
I can see why the government would be reluctant to tackle the issue. Not only is it political suicide to take a hard stance on something so controversial, but there are quite a few dangerous people in some parts of the country who would be particularly unwilling to part with their guns. But IMO it's inexcusable that nobody makes more of a fuss about the fact that 20 CHILDREN were killed because of a lack of gun control.
No, they were killed because some untreated nutter decided to kill them. Guns don't kill people, people do.
Consider the case of the socially accepted killings. Say, Osama Bin Laden. How many headlines were "Osama Bin Laden killed in act of gun violence" and how many were "Navy Seals kill Osama Bin Laden"?
In other countries they have fewer guns and more restrictions on them, and most importantly, almost all of these have far less gun crime.
I do not care about the level of gun crime. I care about the level of crime. What I get murdered by is mostly irrelevant to me. Not getting murdered....now that's important.
Background checks aren't enough, as someone could snap at any moment. It's best that they don't have access to deadly weapons in the first place and thus can't do as much damage when it happens. And making it easier to buy a gun? Leaving them lying around on the street would achieve that same goal.
In actual practice, most people don't just snap at any moment. The vast majority of people in modern society never do murder anyone(or even try to), regardless of what is available. Among those very, very few people who commit mass murders, there is a strong, strong trend of people who have shown signs of being very, very unstable. For instance, the last big one, the batman murder, he tried to become a member of a private gun club, and they wouldn't admit him because of his behavior. Columbine, etc...a history of problematic behavior is common, and prior treatment for mental illness is also common.
So, it seems clear that we are not all equally at risk of waking up tomorrow and shooting up a school. No, the question is how to find and best treat those people who are troubled.
Brace wrote:Non-violent felons shouldn't be stripped of their 2a rights.
Yes, because the US penal system does an excellent job of reforming criminals into members of society fit to carry deadly weapons.
That's true. However, some might consider reformation of the system to be better at rehabilitating prisoners, rather than punishing them, to be a good alternate solution. This isn't just for firearms, but for other things, like voting. Sure, I accept that a non-reformed person is going to make poor use of those rights...but isn't the obvious solution for such a person to either keep them in prison or work to reform them?
And non violent felons, even if not reformed, are not necessarily an issue. If a person shoots others for fun...yeah, giving him a gun might not be a great idea(if he killed people with a car, same same). However, if he committed a felony like, say, opening a pack of cigarettes without tearing the tax stamp, I'm not that worried about him in general.
The wisdom of such crimes being felonies is also worth of questioning, mind you.
Brace wrote:The Hughes amendment should be overturned and machine guns should be available under the same terms as other NFA items.
Automatic weapons are good for nothing more than killing lots of people, and quickly. In what circumstances would that be necessary, and justifiable as self-defence? Do you expect to be at war any time soon?
Machine guns are available under NFA currently. When he speaks of the Hughes amendment, he's speaking to the limitations of what machine guns are legal for private ownership. There are currently about 265,000 holders of NFA licenses. Now, while this includes sawed off shotguns and grenades and the like, it most definitely is a category for fairly exotic weaponry that is not used for purposes like hunting, etc.
Total murders from this? Two. One of which was a police officer, and thus, had access to such weapons through other means. This isn't a yearly total, this is a grand total. From a "killing lots of people" perspective, legal machine guns are pretty irrelevant. They're a hobby for people who like to convert lots of money into light and noise. Much like fireworks, really.
krogoth wrote:"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."
When your apart of a militia you have the right to bear arms, to keep the state in order. Maybe I'm the one taking it out of context but I'm not the one cutting out half the context.
In the first place, it's a reason, not part of the right itself. Therefore, when citing the right, omitting the reasoning why the right exists is not an inaccurate citation.
In the second place, actual militias at the time of the revolution very much were random citizenry, using private weapons. So, the distinction you're trying to draw is not one that is valid from the context whatsoever. Adding incorrect context is not superior to no context.
krogoth wrote:What a joke, Because I know when needing to secure my how from an intruder that has threatened my life, I know I'll have the time to reassemble or remove the trigger lock then load the gun.
The right to protect ones home is probably the worst reason to allow guns.
In the first place, not everyone utilizes trigger locks. The wisdom of this depends on your situation. If you have small children...securing firearms is pretty essential. If you do not, perhaps it's not necessary.
However, if you DO opt for securing your weapons(as I and many others do), options exist that are extremely fast to disable. Push button unlock combos are pretty popular, and take about three seconds to operate. Biometric unlock systems exist, though they are currently more expensive and rare, they can indeed be quite fast.
Morever, a gun is not the answer to all security. Generally, you would wish to take other actions to delay and discourage home intruders, thus giving you more time to retrieve a weapon, call the police, etc, etc. A gun can be part of how you secure your home, certainly, but it need not be the only part.
I heard in another topic a person saying they did combat training to help them self feel safe, they thought everyone should be trained in self defense. But once everyone is trained, no-one is.
Defense /= offense. Training someone to defend themselves is not the same as training people to attack others. Yes, more people probably should get training for emergency situations. Things like awareness of risk and surroundings and avoiding trouble in the first place are usually primary in defense training, and I cannot see how this would be a bad thing.
krogoth wrote:Militia Act of 1903 gives the definition of militia as every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age. Militia as a term for a group of people has become popular due to cultists.
So you can hold a gun until you are 45?
Why are we listening to cultists? Isn't a cult by definition bad?[/quote]
The term "militia" being popular in common usage has nothing to do with advocating listening to cultists. The militia act was not written by cultists...unless you have a very odd definition of cultists.
Being prepared for war is the primary purpose of the second amendment, no?
Then we'll add an addendum to all gun licenses for conscription if wished by the government.[/quote]
I suppose you could make a very, very sketchy claim for those not capable of being drafted not being eligible for the militia. Then, you get to deal with fun bits like women being ineligible for the draft, but most men already are draft eligible.
In any case, giving men the right to own guns, but not giving it to women seems...terribly backward. I'm also not very worried about people over the age of 45 owning guns. There does not seem to be a crime wave of folks with walkers waving guns.