Gun control

[Gannicus]

But it's not though, is it? I wouldn't be allowed to keep an active nuclear device in my house, even if I was a nuclear phsyicist with a Nobel Prize in both science and peace. I could be the most responsible nuclear device owner in the world who never took the warhead off my own land, yet I'm pretty sure I'd still not be allowed to keep it.

The home isn't this sacrasanct place where anything goes.

A nuclear weapon can potentially kill tens of millions of people, which is a vastly greater number than what any handgun is capable of. The reason we ban the private ownership of nukes is a very sensible one that not even the hardest of the hard core tea partyers argue with.

Under American law, there exists something known as the castle doctrine, which more or less says you may use lethal force in your own home if you are confronted with a lethal threat. You're quite right that the home isn't sacrosanct...you can't manufacture chemical weapons, check out child porn or engage in any number of unlawful acts...but it is widely understood even by liberal Democrats that one has an individual right to own and retain a firearm in your own home and use it if necessary. Not any firearm...no nukes, no bombs and no automatic weapons...but an ordinary rifle or handgun, sure.

It's fine if you think this should not be the constitutional law of the land, but it really is the constitutional law of the land. The 2nd Amendment itself, historical practice, case law over the last two centuries and now the Heller decision have put that question to rest.

 

[Eugenius]

Can you own grenades, bombs and other similar weapons under this second amendment thingy?

 

[JustAFan]

Can you own grenades, bombs and other similar weapons under this second amendment thingy?

no

 

[711]

A nuclear weapon can potentially kill tens of millions of people, which is a vastly greater number than what any handgun is capable of. The reason we ban the private ownership of nukes is a very sensible one that not even the hardest of the hard core tea partyers argue with.

Under American law, there exists something known as the castle doctrine, which more or less says you may use lethal force in your own home if you are confronted with a lethal threat. You're quite right that the home isn't sacrosanct...you can't manufacture chemical weapons, check out child porn or engage in any number of unlawful acts...but it is widely understood even by liberal Democrats that one has an individual right to own and retain a firearm in your own home and use it if necessary. Not any firearm...no nukes, no bombs and no automatic weapons...but an ordinary rifle or handgun, sure.

It's fine if you think this should not be the constitutional law of the land, but it really is the constitutional law of the land. The 2nd Amendment itself, historical practice, case law over the last two centuries and now the Heller decision have put that question to rest.

You're reminding me of the religious loons, it is written, in the bible, the koran or whatever, it is the word, so it cannot be contested.

 

[Maxii]

Can you own grenades, bombs and other similar weapons under this second amendment thingy?

Are you mad? That would be dangerous.

 

[langster]

no automatic weapons...but an ordinary rifle or handgun, sure.

With all due respect that's a load of shite. Since when has an AR-15 been an ordinary rifle? It's own makers describe it as "the perfect killing machine" and built especially for combat. Recent shootings prove that you don't need to be a highly trained combat veteran to kill at will with the semi-automatic version of this rifle. The same can be said for high powered shotguns or extremely high powered sniper rifles. There is a world of difference from someone having an old 6 shooter under their pillow for protection and people who own these near military grade firearms. I'm pretty sure when the Second Amendment was written it wasn't envisaged that these kind of weapons would be available so freely and people would be walking around the shops with them, let alone opening fire in schools.

 

[Gannicus]

You're reminding me of the religious loons, it is written, in the bible, the koran or whatever, it is the word, so it cannot be contested.

Then you are deluded. I argue, and have demonstrated with a verbatim citation from the landmark case on this point, what the law is and the distinctions that the law provides -- for example, you may not have nukes, chemical weapons, bombs and automatic weapons. What you argue does not relate to the Constitution nor how it has been interpreted by the courts.

If you wish instead to argue that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed then I would acknowledge that yours is a principled argument.

I have already argued here in favor of "gun control" policies such as prohibiting individuals from bringing guns into shopping malls, a position I suspect you agree with, but to prohibit the ownership of guns altogether clearly violates the Constitution, and I have shown in an earlier post, would have no positive effect on crime rates whatsoever, if verified data in Western Europe and the United States in jurisdictions where "gun bans" have been enforced is to be believed.

Do you wish to proceed with a rational argument or continue with ad hominem attacks?

 

[711]

Then you are deluded. I argue, and have demonstrated with a verbatim citation from the landmark case on this point, what the law is and the distinctions that the law provides -- for example, you may not have nukes, chemical weapons, bombs and automatic weapons. What you argue does not relate to the Constitution nor how it has been interpreted by the courts.

If you wish instead to argue that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed then I would acknowledge that yours is a principled argument.

I have already argued here in favor of "gun control" policies such as prohibiting individuals from bringing guns into shopping malls, a position I suspect you agree with, but to prohibit the ownership of guns altogether clearly violates the Constitution, and I have shown in an earlier post, would have no positive effect on crime rates whatsoever, if verified data in Western Europe and the United States in jurisdictions where "gun bans" have been enforced is to be believed.

Do you wish to proceed with a rational argument or continue with ad hominem attacks?

All opponents are deluded. ok.

 

[peterstorey]

It's fine if you think this should not be the constitutional law of the land, but it really is the constitutional law of the land. The 2nd Amendment itself, historical practice, case law over the last two centuries and now the Heller decision have put that question to rest.

So keep getting people blown away over an antiquated principle, way to go...

 

[Gannicus]

With all due respect that's a load of shite. Since when has an AR-15 been an ordinary rifle? It's own makers describe it as "the perfect killing machine" and built especially for combat. Recent shootings prove that you don't need to be a highly trained combat veteran to kill at will with the semi-automatic version of this rifle. The same can be said for high powered shotguns or extremely high powered sniper rifles. There is a world of difference from someone having an old 6 shooter under their pillow for protection and people who own these near military grade firearms. I'm pretty sure when the Second Amendment was written it wasn't envisaged that these kind of weapons would be available so freely and people would be walking around the shops with them, let alone opening fire in schools.

I support a ban on the private ownership of "semiautomatic" weapons, for reasons that I hope are self-evident. So I'm not sure what you're reacting to. Rifles are NOT synonymous with semiautomatic weapons. Check it out through Google if you don't believe me.

All I've ever written falls within the scope of what one has a constitutional right to "own" are handguns and rifles. Shotguns, which I didn't mention before, too.

I never wrote that anyone has a constituonal right to a semiautomatic weapon of any kind. And if I did, which I doubt, I apologize and retract that assertion.


At this point I should disclose that helped draft and seek passage of California's law which prohibits the private ownership (use, etc.) of semiautomatics weapons. (Fully automatic weapons were banned many years ago...and there is a difference between the two). There was tragic incident in the late 1980s in which about 30 school children were gunned down by a maniac in Stockton, CA (the embodiment of hell on earth) by use of a semiautomatic weapon. I can't remember what he used, but it might have been an AK-47. We looked hard at what was constitutionally permissible and it was clear to us was that ban on semiautomatics was not only obviously advisable (the time had come), but perfectly constitutional. The law has withstood legal challenges and I believe has served us very well. Individuals who wish or need to protect themselves with a handgun may lawfully buy and own a handgun, subject to a background check for priors, but they cannot buy a semiautomatic weapon. At least in California. Every state has its own law on this subject. In response to the Isla Vista incident of last June, we passed a law last year which allows family members to restrain by court order another family member who is suspected of mental illness from purchasing a firearm. There's a due process element which I won't explain here, but it protects the individual from specious claims. I'm sure it will be challenged on constitutional and perhaps even "vagueness" (a court doctrine) grounds, but I'm confident the statute will hold up.

I hope this helps disabuse you of the motion that I believe everyone has a right to own an AR-15, or that such a weapon, which I do not believe I mentioned here before, is "an ordinary rifle".

 

[langster]

@Gannicus

I didn't mean any offence, it was just the way your post was worded with relation to the current laws and what is considered "ordinary or acceptable" when talking about guns. I can completely see your argument/reasoning even if I can't quite agree with it entirely and to be fair you are trying to defend something that is constantly twisted and misinterpreted.

 

[JustAFan]

Now we have the "sleep shooting" defense and by a cop no less who was sleeping with his gun in his bed.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/02/justice/georgia-police-chief-wife/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Fecking moron. I hope he faces manslaughter charges if she dies

 

[TwoSheds]

You don't protect yourself with weapons. You use them to threaten and aggress.

 

[JustAFan]

You don't protect yourself with weapons. You use them to threaten and aggress.

Not entirely true, there have been a few cases of people using them for self-defense, plus you also have hunters, target shooters, collectors, etc many of whom do not use their guns to threaten other people or act aggressively towards other people or even own the guns for self-defense reasons. There really is no need to paint all gun owners with such broad brush strokes.

 

[Eyepopper]

I shouldn't but , yanks and their guns...

As an aside, whether true or not, Liam Neeson was on TV over the weekend telling a story about getting a letter from a teacher in Texas who had planned a trip to Europe from her students, over half the class were refused permission to go, citing having seen Taken as evidence that it wasn't safe.

nutters!

 

[Eyepopper]

You don't protect yourself with weapons. You use them to threaten and aggress.

I've owned a gun, several in fact, for over 20 years, and I've never threatened or been aggressive with them, if I were they'd be taken, rightly, away from me.

If I applied for a gun license on the grounds of self defense I'd be laughed at and be more likely to be locked up that given a gun...

Americas problem with guns stems from a complete lack of any sort of control, an almost paranoid feeling of some sort of need for protection, and a feck load of nut jobs.

 

[JustAFan]

I shouldn't but , yanks and their guns...

As an aside, whether true or not, Liam Neeson was on TV over the weekend telling a story about getting a letter from a teacher in Texas who had planned a trip to Europe from her students, over half the class were refused permission to go, citing having seen Taken as evidence that it wasn't safe.

nutters!

But they done seen it in the talking picture shows.....

 

[Eyepopper]

The only thing madder than someone getting shot for holding an airrifle in Walmart is the fact that they sell airfirles in Walmart btw.

 

[Eyepopper]

That's not even the worst episode of police brutality this year!

The killing of 12 year old Tamir Rice for the crime of carrying a bb gun in a park in November is the worst imo.
The police car stormed the park and the officer shot the kid in under 3 seconds... No warning.. Nothing.

The icing on the cake is the officer in question was deemed "unfit for police work" by another police precinct. He just transferred to another department.... And yes, of course, Tamir Rice was black:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...police-shooting-of-12-year-old-cleveland-boy/

The link contains the actual video of the murder.

No question as to just why the feck the parents of a 12 year old were letting him walk around the streets with an Airsoft pistol, no?

 

[peterstorey]

At this point I should disclose that helped draft and seek passage of California's law which prohibits the private ownership (use, etc.) of semiautomatics weapons.

Why not all guns? They're all pretty lethal.

 

[surf]

I always will remember,
'twas a year ago November,
I went out to hunt some deer
On a morning bright and clear.
I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

I was in no mood to trifle,
I took down my trusty rifle
And went out to stalk my prey.
What a haul I made that day.
I tied them to my fender, and I drove them home somehow,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

The law was very firm, it
Took away my permit,
The worst punishment I ever endured.
It turned out there was a reason,
Cows were out of season,
And one of the hunters wasn't insured.

People ask me how I do it,
And I say, "there's nothing to it,
You just stand there looking cute,
And when something moves, you shoot!"
And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a pure-bred Guernsey cow.


Tom Lehrer - The Hunting Song

 

[peterstorey]

Irony, irony, they've all got it in infamy.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Well I'm happy the baby didn't shoot himself.

 

[Nanook]

I have already argued here in favor of "gun control" policies such as prohibiting individuals from bringing guns into shopping malls, a position I suspect you agree with, but to prohibit the ownership of guns altogether clearly violates the Constitution, and I have shown in an earlier post, would have no positive effect on crime rates whatsoever, if verified data in Western Europe and the United States in jurisdictions where "gun bans" have been enforced is to be believed.

What use is a gun ban in US cities when a few miles away in a different area the laws no longer apply?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

Most countries that banned guns didn't have a lot of gun murder to begin with so of course you're not going to see a massive change if any in the murder rate. The U.S. is different in this regard where the majority of homicides are gun murders.

As for that article a lot of information is left out, murder was rising anyway in the UK even before the ban and a few freak incidents in the 2000's made the increase look a lot bigger, 58 people died of suffocation in the back of a lorry trying to get into the UK in 2000, the London bombings in 2005 in which 52 died and that big spike in the murder rate in 2003 was the 218 victims of serial killer Harold Shipman.

He chose a convenient year to show an increase in Ireland's murder rate, the early 70s. That was just the start of what would become a 3 decade long conflict in Northern Ireland, in 1972 N.Ireland's murder rate was around 25, the murder rate in the US in 1972 was 8. Violence often spilled into The Republic of Ireland which probably explains the increase in murders. Nothing to do with any gun ban.

 

[ravi2]

No question as to just why the feck the parents of a 12 year old were letting him walk around the streets with an Airsoft pistol, no?

When I was that age I had a bb gun, according to you I could have been shot and killed for it?

He was a child and posed no threat... Do you not think the police could have handled that situation better instead of ambushing and killing him within 3 seconds?

 

[Eyepopper]

When I was that age I had a bb gun, according to you I could have been shot and killed for it?

Yes, if were in the street with it on your own, I'd say you could have been shot and killed for it, this poor lad was, thats not me saying I think you should have been.

He was a child and posed no threat... Do you not think the police could have handled that situation better instead of ambushing and killing him within 3 seconds?

I haven't said anything about how the police handled it.

When I was 12 there is no way on earth my parents would have let me have an Airsoft pistol, never mind carry it around the street with me, and I don't live in a country where the police are famed for a history of being trigger happy when it comes to people of my ethnicity who have, or seem to have, a firearm in their possession.

Reports I read on the incident also say that the pistol (which you have to be 16 to own on this side of the world) had had the orange tip (which indicates its not a real pistol) removed....

I'm not sure what one the kid had but here are a few examples of airsoft pistols...

I've used them in the past, they are replica firearms, many of them almost indistinguishable from the real thing in look and feel - which is why they put the orange tips on them. If someone pointed one of them at me, I'd feel threatened.

If I were black and living in a country where the police were fond of blowing away black people, I don't think I'd let my 12 year old carry something like that in the street - certainly not without clearly identifiable markings to indicate it wasn't real. I think its highly irresponsible parenting - if not just basic idiocy.

That in no way excuses the actions of the police.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Why not all guns? They're all pretty lethal.

This is what's weird about the whole thing.

 

[Eyepopper]

This is what's weird about the whole thing.

There are different classification of firearm, some with valid uses, target shooting, hunting, etc.

That said, semi auto assault rifles, and similar are designed and intended for only one purpose, there is no reason for owning a gun like that, most people I've ever met that would want one are nutters to begin with.

 

[Eyepopper]

Wanting to own an assault rifle, on the grounds that you might need to it defend yourself at some stage is batshit crazy btw... having it enshrined as a right in your constitution

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Wanting to own an assault rifle, on the grounds that you might need to it defend yourself at some stage is batshit crazy btw... having it enshrined as a right in your constitution

Handguns bother me too. Utterly pointless other than as props for the fantasy home invasion scenario that won't ever happen, penis substitutes and accidentally killing children.

 

[berbatrick]

About the 2nd amendment:

1. The language ("well-regulated militia") means the government should (in fact, it must!) be allowed to keep a record of every gun and its owner. Yet Obama "will take away our rights" with a "federal gun registery."

2. There's nothing about carrying these arms in public. Can easily be banned, all over.

3. The logic used to not allow citizens to carry tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, etc. by Scalia and co. was so juvenile (bear arms = carry them in one's hand) I couldn't believe Supreme Court judges used it. It's like they had come to the logical end point of their interpretation of the 2nd amendment and got out from the conundrum with a crazy stunt.

4. Is an outdated piece of law and should be, well, amended.

Re-reading that amendment, especially with the 1st clause, in the context of the Britishers having just left and there being no standing US Army, it makes sense that the current scenario is not what the amendment was talking about. But then Scalia is not big on context...

 

[ryansgirl]

I don't think I'll ever understand the gun culture in the US. I'm not fan of the guy but I remember a few years ago when Piers Morgan was tweeting something along the lines of 'guns should be banned in the US' and I remember him getting loads of abuse for Americans, a lot of them telling him to go back to the UK etc.

I'd like to talk to someone who is pro guns, genuinely don't understand why or how someone would be.

Piers Morgan deserved the verbal drubbings he got for his arrogance and ignorance regardless of how over the top some of the comments were. He is a typical member of the chattering classes who are 'experts' on everything they have never had to confront.

I am glad my own country does not have the social conditions of the USA including the normality of guns for the citizenry but you have to put the USA into context.

For one, the states have different laws on just about everything. Colorado for example has had liberal gun laws for some time. The idea of concealed carry, whether we non Yanks agree with it or not, is that the decent person who might be singled out as a victim of crime under usual circumstances, is protected by laws which allow concealed carry.

Criminals in such states know their potential victims have the right to concealed weapons under the law. It is intended not only as self defence but as a deterrent.

I remember about five years ago reading about a bright African American kid who worked at a restaurant somewhere in Washington DC when he wasn't studying at university. He was shot not far from his part time job workplace by a violent thief and a lot of commentators on his death pointed out that he might have had a chance if he had been able to carry a weapon on his way home through unsafe areas.

Americans who support liberal gun laws say that gun control benefits criminals who will obtain guns no matter what. In Australia stricter gun laws were made after a weirdo massacred people at a café in Tasmania some years ago but gun crime is still a problem as apart from farmers and police officers/military, the only other people who have and use guns are criminals.

You can make an argument that the Columbine massacre, Sandy Hook etc could have been stopped by teachers with concealed carry permits. Piers Morgan represents what is wrong with elites including those in the media. Experts on things that others have to deal with.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

You can make an argument that the Columbine massacre, Sandy Hook etc could have been stopped by teachers with concealed carry permits. Piers Morgan represents what is wrong with elites including those in the media. Experts on things that others have to deal with.

Columbine had an armed guard who tried and failed to shoot the perpetrator

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.

After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."

LaPierre said having armed security on the scene is necessary so someone is there to shoot back. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away -- or a minute away?"

But in chaotic situations, it's often impossible to identify the "bad guy," as Smoker said in his account of Columbine: "There was an unknown inside a school. We didn't know who the 'bad guy' was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who 'they' were."

"That's the point," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at a press conference on Friday afternoon, denouncing LaPierre's solution. "There were two armed law enforcement officers at that campus, and you see what happened. Fifteen dead ... 23 wounded."

The amount of damage that someone can do in a short space of time with a high powered weapon makes that argument redundant.

 

[Raptori]

Handguns bother me too. Utterly pointless other than as props for the fantasy home invasion scenario that won't ever happen, penis substitutes and accidentally killing children.

When I was 14, I was at home alone, playing Pro Evo in my bedroom on the third floor of our house. Someone rang the doorbell. I didn't want to quit my game, so I leaned out of the window and looked down to see who it was. Some guy had parked his car next to our house and was standing on the pavement. I guessed he was a friend of my older sister—a couple of her friends had just learned to drive and they often came over to pick her up—so I ignored him and and started playing again. Couldn't be bothered going down two flights of stairs just to tell him she was out, he could call her if he was that bothered.

I went back to playing. A few minutes later, I heard a couple of loud bangs followed by a crash. Paused the game and wondered what the hell was going on. Went downstairs, and stopped near the top of the final flight, down just far enough that I could see the front door. The door's window was broken, and it stood wide open. The guy stood a couple of paces into the hall, a brick in his hand.

I said "what's going on?" or something like that.

He said "Errr... someone just robbed your house. I'll get him, he went this way!" then turned around and ran out of the door.

I followed, and the car I had seen earlier drove past, I walked to the pavement and watched it drive away—too far by that point to see the licence plate. I rang my family to let them know someone had broken into the house, then rang the police. Apparently the car was stolen but then returned later that day, the owner contacted the police after noticing that the mileage had jumped during the day. I was the only witness, but couldn't identify the guy particularly well because he had been silhouetted. He had stolen several plasma tvs that day, the police said they thought he had a device that could sense when one was within a certain distance from him—we didn't even have a tv like that so he'd have been disappointed by our house!

I wasn't even remotely scared at any moment of this, because there was no reason to be. I was a karate black belt, with lots of experience sparring with fully grown men who had trained for decades, and I had given myself the higher ground by stopping on the stairs. The only thing I regret is not picking up my digital camera and recording a video of what happened.

If the guy had had a gun, it could've been a completely different story.

 

[berbatrick]

Americans who support liberal gun laws say that gun control benefits criminals who will obtain guns no matter what. In Australia stricter gun laws were made after a weirdo massacred people at a café in Tasmania some years ago but gun crime is still a problem as apart from farmers and police officers/military, the only other people who have and use guns are criminals.

Australian homicide rate is 1.1 per 100,000 of population.
The US rate is 4.7 per 100,000 of population. (2012 figures)
The is the OVERALL not the gun-only rate.

 

[Gannicus]

Why not all guns? They're all pretty lethal.

That would violate the Constitution, as previously discussed.

 

[langster]

If the guy had had a gun, it could've been a completely different story.

But if you had had a gun you could have shot him, or missed and he still shot you. It's all ifs. The point is that the guy DIDN'T have a gun.

I am not belittling your experience, i'm sorry you had to endure that, and i'm sure it must have been scary. However, nobody is expecting to live in paradise, there will never be a completely idyllic society where there is absolutely no crime, ever. It would be naïve to think that ever possible. Most of the random shootings or murders often happen in small quiet places where it wouldn't be expected. They happen in schools, cinemas, coffee shops, quiet villages in England, peaceful towns in the States etc. There is no way you can ever be entirely 100% sure it won't happen where you are. You can however try to reduce shootings, murders and all crime by improving many things. From social problems, to mental health problems to financial problems etc. But there is ONE constant in all of these things and that is GUNS!

The arming teachers with guns argument is as ludicrous as any I have ever heard. It's completely moronic. What if the Teacher lost it one day? Again we are in to "what if" territory but remove the gun from the situation and there is no "what if" to deal with. I also found that argument by the N.R.A. completely insensitive and out of order to the families of children who have lost their lives in School/College shootings.

It's perfectly simple to me. Farmers need guns, hunters need guns, and gun enthusiasts can happily attend rifle ranges, legal shoots or go clay pigeon shooting. The laws allowing these people to have guns should be stringent and they should have to ensure the guns are sealed and locked away at all times when not in use. The military have guns and law enforcement officers have guns, thankfully here in the UK most of ours don't, but I accept some countries aren't there yet, but it could be achieved. People like myself can go to paintball, watch a movie or play Battlefield if we feel the need for some gun related excitement. The simple fact is if you reduce the number of guns available, the less people will have them, the less people will feel the need to own one for protection.

Farmers and hunters have got along just fine for years with basic bolt action rifles and standard shotguns so there is absofeckinlutely no need for high powered assault rifles, high powered repeat action shotguns, sniper rifles or semi automatic pistols to be available to people and especially not in stores like Wal-Mart where kids can buy toys. Open Carry shouldn't even be in debate, especially not in a so-called civilised country where most people want reform on gun laws. It's a no-brainer, you don't walk around with guns in public places, on display or concealed it matters not, it should be a criminal offence. If anything, this recent shooting by the two year old should just show how truly ridiculous the carrying of a firearm in public truly is.

It's easy to say and I appreciate it is not so easy to do, but with enough help, common sense and education I believe it could be achievable, but not until someone stands up to the N.R.A. and gun lobbyists, and not until someone challenges the Second Amendment in its current form. Getting money out of politics in America is essential for a myriad of reasons, gun reform is just one of them, but it could be one of the most important. But for any of that to happen the first step must be towards changing Americas perception of guns. Also it's naïve to think it could be sorted out quickly. With the paranoia spread throughout America, it would be a long time before the banning of handguns for home protection could be tackled, but one thing for sure is that it needs to start somewhere and needs to start soon otherwise we will still be debating this amid more and more unnecessary killings. But that's ok because the fear and paranoia spreads further, the N.R.A. can keep spouting their twisted logic and self serving rhetoric, and more people go out to buy guns and the gun companies just keep on getting richer and richer.

 

[711]

That would violate the Constitution, as previously discussed.

You refer to your constitution as some equivalent of the koran, handed down by god and it can never be changed.

It was written by men who thought it was right at the time, and it can and should be changed if men, and maybe this time even women too, think it should be.

 

[Raptori]

But if you had had a gun you could have shot him, or missed and he still shot you. It's all ifs. The point is that the guy DIDN'T have a gun.

Yep, that was my point. If I had lived in the US I'd have been worried about the guy having a gun, but because I lived in England that just wasn't an issue.

 

[langster]

Yep, that was my point. If I had lived in the US I'd have been worried about the guy having a gun, but because I lived in England that just wasn't an issue.

Just remind me never to wind you up mate, don't fancy arguing with a fecking Ninja!