posted
Okay, just to approach this from a fresh angle, since I think we've just about argued the 'should guns be banned in the US' argument to death.
Should guns be legalised in the UK? (To the same, lesser or greater extend as the US) Do you think it would reduce crime or increase it? I'm especially interested in the American viewpoints.
------------------ 'Those are the headlines. Happy now?' -Chris Morris.
posted
Scratch that, then you'd get everyone to be their own nation.
The Democratic republic of Herman, the United State of George, The Commonwealth of Henrik.
Scratch the above as well, we already have that, don't we?
Why did I even bother replying in this thread? I don't know. ------------------ Jeff Raven - Having more fun than any human being should be allowed to have
[This message was edited by Jeff Raven on April 24, 1999.]
posted
I really don't think it would change anything. The British are not going to all of a sudden become raving lunatics just because they have access to a gun.
------------------ "It was sweet, like lead paint's sweet, but the aftereffects left me paralyzed." -- They Might Be Giants
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
We're all crazy!
Anyway, in response to Liams question, NO! I hate the idea of guns circulating on the streets. There was this guy who was into drugs who got shot a couple of months ago, he lived on my street about a 30 second walk away from my house. I don't remember him, but I'm sure that I had seen him around.
As I said in the other thread, the idea of walking the streets and feeling safe is very comforting, and although most of us won't become lunatics, it only takes one.....
------------------ It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.
posted
I concur. Random violence flares because people act on sudden agressive impulses. The relative power of the nearest weapon to hand will dictate the seriousness of the fallout. Ergo, keep powerful weapons heavily restricted.
------------------ "I AM THE SPIDER!!!!" - Vic Reeves
posted
>"The theory goes something like this: In Aus when two guys have a serious problem they beat the crap out of each other. Few broken bones, at worst. In the USA, they just shoot."
A gross oversimplification at best, ignoring the obvious fact that it is possible for someone to beat someone else to death using only their hands. I know people capable of this.
The concept of keeping weapons restricted is nothing new. It is obvious that many people are grossly uninformed about the existing gun control legislation in the US, including its residents.
For instance, it is already illegal to own a handgun if you're under 21. It is already illegal to discharge a firearm within 100 yards of any residence. It is already illegal to either own, or make or sell, 3 of the four firearms used in Littleton. It is already illegal to threaten people's lives. It is already illegal for people who have been prohibited from owning firearms to own firearms. It is already illegal to carry a firearm onto any school property or to any school function.
And then, of course, there's this so-called "random violence," which does not exist. Nobody, NOBODY just walks down the street with a gun, and then, acting on impulse, starts blowing people away. People who believe otherwise have been watching too much TV. TV's JOB is to portray ALL gun owners other than cops and soldiers as maniacs and/or idiots. It NEVER does otherwise.
And of course, the odds are even, or better, if the person being aggressed against ALSO has a means of defense/offense. Very few shootings are two-sided, taking place when BOTH individuals are armed, and each person knows the other is. "One guy shot the other" happens a lot, but "They shot each other" rarely happens. And, of course, the media rarely pays attention when the person doing the shooting is one of the good guys. They also ignore the fact that the gun control folks don't make that distinction when adding up their statistics. To them, anybody, good guy or bad guy, who gets shot counts the same. Which is crap. Ergo, if you can't get the weapons away from the bad guys - which you can't, since they already have them - , it's best to at least give the good guys a fighting chance.
posted
It's the availability of guns which determines their concentration in the populace, and generally, ho wmany people die from them. UK: EXTREME gun control. Few guns. Few shootings and deaths. US: Looser gun control. Many more guns. Many more shootings and deaths.
Simple? Yes, but true... It takes a lot of effort to beat someoen to death, and psychologically it is much harder to keep delivering blows to someone broken and bleading on the floor than it is to stand 10 metres away and shoot them.
------------------ 'Those are the headlines. Happy now?' -Chris Morris.
posted
I believe the psychic one has summed it up rather well.
Let me ask you a question. Imagine the world is an ant hive. And the ant next door keeps a pet ant eater. Wouldn't you be likely to object? Especially if that ant tended towards the nutty?
------------------ 'Sir, you've been ordered not to take Polermo'
'Ring General HQ, ask them if they want me to give it back'.
posted
What is the law on gun control in Australia anyway? Is it looser than the UK?
Now if somehow phasers were invented, and could be permentantly locked on stun, I wouldn't see any problem with over 21's being allowed to own one. Guns kill, and kill easily.
------------------ 'Those are the headlines. Happy now?' -Chris Morris.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
