Outlawing firearms only takes them out of the possession of law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws, so they'll continue to use firearms even if they are banned. I think that the current restrictions on firearms in the US are more than sufficient. I'll go as far as to say that some of them are unnecessary, such as laws limiting the clip capacity of certain firearms (in places such as California). A firearm with a 5-round magazine capacity is just as lethal as a firearm with a 30-round magazine capacity. The logic behind some of these gun control laws are just ridiculous. I'm not saying that people should have full access to Mk-19's and GECAL .50's, but some of those restrictions out there are just stupid.
It's a simple matter. People are innocent until proven guilty. Gun control begs the question over who carries guns based on the idea that controlling them will curtail violent crimes. Logically speaking, gun owners are either criminals or potential criminals, and the idea of a potential criminal goes against our justice system. The center cannot hold in this argument. Realistically, I don't believe the hardline anti-gun people are very pragmatic. I see them as elitists who think that a good country is run by playing a holistic game of numbers, i.e. If we ban guns, we'll infringe on the rights of some but only for their own good as more lives will end up being saved. This is a false statement that can be disproven by its own component parts. Those losing their guns will only lose them because they are law-abiding and a threat to no one. Those responsible gun owners who don't give up their guns will be made criminals by the letter rather than the spirit of the law - a true abomination. In contrast, those who present a danger to society will not give up their guns because those guns are already illegal to begin with. These dangerous weapons will become no less dangerous, as their current, pre-ban ownership is aleady illegal. Furthermore, they will go nowhere, thus the spirit of the law fails here once again.
People don't need military grade assault rifles, compact SMG's or RPG-7s... However, handguns, semi automatic rifles and maybe obsolete military arms (things like m1 garands and kar 98s) should still be allowed.
I feel that owning a firearn isnt really that needed. Just look at pretty much every country in Europe, Canada etc. If they have strict gun control and little to no gun related murders then why do Americans need it. Also before someone pulls out the first amendment stuff on me let me be clear that was created at a time when flintlock pistols and muskets were pretty much the only guns in existence. Im pretty sure your founding fathers had no idea that you would have access to rifles and pistols that shoot more than two bullets per minute or that you could reload more than one at a time.
Second Amendment btw. And imo it's not really a question of that the founding fathers can't predict the future, but simply that guns have always been an enormous part of culture in the history of the US which is why that amendment has never been officially altered. It's not going to go away, there are too many people who cherish that given right. Again, why? Simply because it's there and has always been there but may not be indefinitely which scares some. Which is why there is so much loudness from both sides with this particularly and with little give from either. I completely agree though that things need to be done to decrease the rate of gun-related violence, and that people really don't need access to high powered weaponry. I am a gun owner, sportsman and what have you, and it really is a cultural and lifestyle aspect for me and my family's own history. Is it justification to let the rate of violence continue? Of course not. But to remove it completely is not a very nice way to go when it's very much an intrinsic part of US history and culture which enough people still value to make it something of importance. In the end, the bad people will stay bad. Why would someone want a gun though? Why would someone want a Ferrari, just get a bug and you can still get around yea? It takes a level of understanding that you either get or you don't. It can't be explained. There is an entire art and beauty to firearms aside from just shooting that honest respectable gun owners connect with. My father handcrafted many of his collected firearms and they're absolutely beautiful (eye of the beholder of course) and are examples of great craftsmanship.
I'll try to say this as nicely as possible... You are not an American. You do not understand American culture and tradition. Our gun laws are absolutely none of your business, so kindly keep your opinions to yourself. American gun laws are an American issue, and foreigners have no reason or right to get involved.
That thinking is making you over look simple things: All of the illegally trafficked guns coming into Canada originate from the US. Many other countries around the world - wherein firearms are controlled - also face a similar conundrum. So no, guns aren't only an American issue; we do have a right to get involved, because you aren't the only people who live in this world.
I fail to see how the incompetence of the Canadian Border Services Agency is the fault of the United States.
I could just as easily blame this on the American Border Services, but that wouldn't solve any issues. Following this logic, it's your fault Canada is the US's leading supplier of some narcotics - like for example, ecstasy - and yet our government is actually trying to do something about that. Why isn't yours acting in kind?
Gun runners, when they're caught, go to jail. Besides, most of the people smuggling guns into Canada are Canadians. While it's true that our gun laws provide the opportunity for smuggling guns into Canada, the United States is no more at fault for the smuggling than a man that leaves his car unlocked would be for having his car stolen.
This contention doesn't hold any water, given that gun homicides and violence over here in the US have decreased during the past 20 years. This is in spite of the fact that the ban on "assault weapons" was allowed to expire in 2004. We would be seeing a spike in such gun homicide and violence if guns were the culrpit. Furthermore, the UK is the "violent crime capital of Europe" in spite of their strict gun control legislation passed in 1996. Switzerland also happens to be a European country awash in guns and with a low violent crime rate. The gun control lobby's arguments aren't particularly convincing, and they are certainly not predicated on logical consistency. For instance, according to the World Health Organization, alcohol kills more people than AIDS, Tuberculosis, or violence, yet we don't see such politicians calling for greater restrictions on alcohol. I like to highlight the example of alcohol, as it has no utilitarian purposes (this charge is often thrown at "assault rifles," "high capacity magazines," etc.).
Besides, since out goverments going to ****, we're gonna need guns in case they go full galactic empire on us.
>2009 >Five years ago Nice outdated source m8. The UK had a high crime rate in 2009, but it fell a hella lot. And even if the UK was still the Crime Capital of Europe, America still has a far higher Murder rate. America has almost five times the murders per 100,000- And this was in 2011/12, when the UK still did have a higher crime rate. Anyway, I have little say on US gunlaws (obviously), but I think the US has probably missed its chance to introduce them. People in the US seem to feel they need firearms to protect themselves, and if a law was introduced, it'd maybe only be the law-abiding blokes who'd give their guns in. Edit; That said, although it may cause problems in the short-term, it'd fix issues in the long term. I'll be honest though, I don't think I'd feel all too safe in the US.
I wholeheartedly agree with DoDo. I also feel that this three part group of video's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L&index=2 can pretty some up my stance on it all.
The crime rate here in the US is rather icky depending on where you live, can't really argue that. But I always take raw numbers like that with a little grain of salt. Not that they are incorrect, but how relevant they really are to the average individual. The US has an incredibly bad gang and underground drug problem that you're not going to find in the UK of the same extent. It's my personal thoughts and interpretation that that is where the bulk of those homicides stem from. The numbers that are in that table, at least reported by the US are from what the FBI lists as "non-negligent manslaughter" or voluntary manslaughter; which typically is defined as "heat of the moment" and lesser than anything that is preconceived which with my own interpretation backs up my thoughts. Again, these are just my thoughts. The other issue with tables like that is the reporting accuracy comes down to the specific countries and many skew statistics for political reasons or avoid pursuing cases to report anything at all. As for living here, like most places, common sense is your friend. If you don't walk the streets in shady areas after 9pm you're probably fine lol. That actually bears little relevance to the issue of guns other than satirically making fun of dumb-ass politicians. Since the 1996 incident and the gun-control ruling the Aussie crime rate has only really increased since then with some peaks and valleys between then and now. Not trying to offend but posting videos like that in a serious discussion thread doesn't really back up much understanding you have of the issue. Of course John Stewart is going to bash US politics, that's what he does.
Considering that we've had like 3 or 4 shootings JUST THIS YEAR. Yeah we do need gun laws. Not like it'd help much. I got an idea. Lets just gather all the sensible people and move to Canada. Canada is big.
Here's a list of school shootings in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States Your right to own a gun is paid in others' blood.
