guns v no guns

Simple innit really. People are mental.

If they have a gun in their hands they'll probably shoot you and loads of other people during one of their mental stages. If they don't, they'll probably have a knife or sumat (though they most likely won't even then cos its not really a big statement to grab a knife) and the chances of death end up considerably lower, with the chances of mass deaths at the hands of one almost negligible.

Also, guns make people feel powerful. People are stupid. When stupid people feel powerful, bad things happen cos of their arrogance and/or terrible decision making.
 
twosips said:
Simple innit really. People are mental.

If they have a gun in their hands they'll probably shoot you and loads of other people during one of their mental stages. If they don't, they'll probably have a knife or sumat (though they most likely won't even then cos its not really a big statement to grab a knife) and the chances of death end up considerably lower, with the chances of mass deaths at the hands of one almost negligible. Also, guns make people feel powerful. People are stupid. When stupid people feel powerful, bad things happen cos of their arrogance and/or terrible decision making.
Click to expand...
But its in the Constitution so that makes it OK, despite that being 200 years out of date






















Motherfucker..........
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
I like your thinking, great post. I await the 'Merkans response
Click to expand...
Prefer the term 'Muricans.

Seems like there is no debate, other than to drag the U.S. Fans in and try to belittle the laws here. Good luck with that.

As for guns in America, it is a toothpaste-tube problem. The Aussies seemed to fix it tout suite, but in America it is such a part of the engrained (inbred?) culture that it is almost impossible to think that the Second Amendment would, or even could, be repealed. And, even if you could repeal it, who is going to go out and round up all the guns? If you think local police are going to do it, you are simply out to lunch. If you think the Feds are going to go into rural America and take guns from (until then) law-abiding citizens, then you might want to bring some cameras along, because you will be filming the Second Civil War!

In America, laws are passed by Congress and determined to be constitutional or not by the Supreme Court. You would need a Supermajority (2/3) vote in Congress and then a 3/4 vote (38/50) by the States.

What is REALLY needed is for a YOUNG Democratic Supreme Court (at least 5 of 9 Justices) to overturn the current SCOTUS interpretation of The Second Amendment to the Constitution. That way, even if there were future challenges, they could not overturn the interpretation in a few years, and America might be able to get used to living with the consequences of the decision.

There are many, many people smarter than me, or anyone else on here, who have gone around and around on the meaning of the wording for the Second Amendment, both what it meant when written and what it means today. In America, the SCOTUS decides. If they ever chance their mind, it will be a decision for the ages.

Unfortunately for Brits, as with much of English a Common Law that was enacted in the colonies, it's essentially your fault for the Second Amendment, as it was fashioned after your own Bill of Rights in 1689.

The Declaration of Right was established in December 1689 when enacted in an Act of Parliament: the Bill of Rights 1689.

The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring:
  • laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament;
  • no taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;
  • the right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;
  • no standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament;
  • That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law;
  • the election of members of Parliament should be free;
  • the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
  • excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;
  • jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason trials should be freeholders;
  • promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
  • Parliaments should be held frequently.
The Second Amendment states:

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.

As you can read for yourself, it is a strange sentence. Many people focus on various different aspects, meanings, intentions, definitions, and even grammar to the point of what the commas mean. if you read Scalia, the most rabidly conservative Justice, he postulates that many weapons are included in the word "arms," up to and possibly including an RPG!

 
If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.
Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
 
Rag-hater said:
If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.
Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
Click to expand...
which would point to whether gun control is reflected in law or not

suicide has many more factors than guns to consider
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Seems like there is no debate, other than to drag the U.S. Fans in and try to belittle the laws here. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

The most unlikeable quality of the Americans is their extreme persecution complex and how it informs their nationalist mythology
 
Rag-hater said:
If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death”
Click to expand...

Nobody is touting that specific mantra so your whole point is ridiculous. You've confused the issues of more guns equals more deaths in America with more guns equals more deaths
 
thisthreadsucks.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.