The US constitution and the right to "Bear Arms"

omnicorp

Why does America have the highst amount of people being killed/year from guns?
Their constitution gives them the right to "Bear Arms".
This could be anything from a stick to a nuclear weapon.
Should they change the constitution so that they can save thousands of lives every year.
But recently gun ownership has been increasing, not only in America, but in Europe too.
Many people are getting killed by guns (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2915914
around Europe .
Should America ban firearms completely?
Should Ireland put more effort into finding illegal firearms?

I think so, even saving one life would be worth it.

I think it's time for the US to grow up and realise that Indians aren't going to ambush them, they've got no morte slaves to control, no more Britain to fight... They are SAFE!
well, they were until Bush came to office but they're only putting themselves into trouble by buying guns.

(http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html
(http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE)

Gordon

It's simply so that they can be more well equipped to take over the planet. Seeing as America wants to take over the planet, they won't be taking away that right for a while.

(atari jaguar)

Oh, and they aren't safe, they have to protect themselves from themselves also.

simu

They should certainly put more restrictions on the sale of guns and ammunition but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Many people over there see the constitution as a sort of absolute text that stands for all time and interpret the right to bear arms as meaning that a true American has an obligation to bear arms. Check out the http://www.nra.org/ - it's frightening!

Sparks

Wow. Omni, when you troll, you don't mess about, do you? To quote the West Wing, you grabbed a hold of the third rail with both hands there...

Okay, so first things first - the US isn't the biggest example of a gun culture, Switzerland is. JC can confirm, but shooting is a rather large sport there. And yet, they have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. It's a cliche, I know, but "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is quite accurate.

Secondly, if you were to make a list of dangerous things that kill people, guns wouldn't make the top ten in most countries in Europe or North America. Cars sure would. Poor diet and lack of exercise would. Alcohol would. Narcotics would. Smoking would.
And yet, guns are the (ironically) easy target.

But thirdly, and this is the doozy, there's the small problem that gun control laws don't work. All they do is regulate the firearms owned by law-abiding people, not the ones owned by criminals; and the ones owned by criminals are the ones that cause the problems.

Look at it this way, okay? Illegal possession of a firearm carries a sentence of two or three years at most in most countries. Murder carries a sentence of between ten years and life imprisonment (or the death penalty). Now, if you're willing to risk the second penalty, why would the first one even give you pause for thought?

omnicorp

em... I was attacking their constitution, Not the gun crime as such, but that was part of it.
Why do people living in the suburbs need them?
They need to get out of the 18th Century and grow up.

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

But thirdly, and this is the doozy, there's the small problem that gun control laws don't work. All they do is regulate the firearms owned by law-abiding people, not the ones owned by criminals; and the ones owned by criminals are the ones that cause the problems.

What about the ones that kill their children by accident? Got any stats on that? What about hunting accidents or "heat of the argument" type killings?

Look at it this way, okay? Illegal possession of a firearm carries a sentence of two or three years at most in most countries. Murder carries a sentence of between ten years and life imprisonment (or the death penalty). Now, if you're willing to risk the second penalty, why would the first one even give you pause for thought?

All that suggests is that penalties on crime alone aren't effective in preventing crime.

omnicorp

yes, exactly, and just because cars kill more, does that mean we shouldn't try and fix the problem?
How would the family of Danielle in England feel about that?

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

Okay, so first things first - the US isn't the biggest example of a gun culture, Switzerland is. JC can confirm, but shooting is a rather large sport there. And yet, they have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. It's a cliche, I know, but "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is quite accurate.

Can you contrast the gun laws in Switzerland with the US? I seriously doubt that they are exactly the same.
Also target shooting is one thing, whilst running around your neighborhood with a Desert Eagle is altogether different. I know a good few gun nuts back at home that have never set foot in a shooting range. I have, on the other hand, had a few bring them to keg parties.

I remember you making a statement in another gun control debate...something to the effect of "maybe Americans shouldn't own guns". I remember agreeing whole heartedly with that.

Sparks

omnicorp wrote:

em... I was attacking their constitution, Not the gun crime as such, but that was part of it.

But if the two are seperate and unlinked, why attack the one that doesn't kill people?

Why do people living in the suburbs need them?

Why should they have to need them if they're not harming people with them? And don't forget - the statistic oft quoted is that one in ten thousand gun owners in the states will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime; but it's one in four drivers. So why aren't cars banned?

They need to get out of the 18th Century and grow up.

What else from the 18th Century should we abandon? All of the philosophy of the Enlightenment? The idea that all men are equal? The idea of seperation of church and state?

Hobbes

It is my understanding that the right to bear arms is to keep a well armed militia and to raise up if the government tries to take control.

Although if the government were ever to fight the civilians the Army would certainly win.

For the US the cat is pretty much out of the bag. There is no point banning weapons as it will be almost impossible to enforce, and there are a large number of Americans who will give back their guns "when they are taken from their cold dead hands".

A better system would be to have gun control and better education, probably even a gun class. Certainly the NRA are in the best position to do this.

Sparks

sovtek wrote:

What about the ones that kill their children by accident?

Accident Type  	Age
	0-4 	5-14 	15-24 	25-44 	45-64 	65-74 	75+ 	Total
All Automobile 	900 	1,500 	10,500 	13,300 	9,200 	2,700 	4,900 	43,000
Falls 	70 	70 	210 	950 	1,900 	1,700 	11,300 	16,200
Poisoning by solids, liquids 	60 	40 	800 	6,800 	3,200 	300 	500 	11,700
Pedestrian1 	250 	300 	750 	1,300 	1,400 	450 	850 	5,300
Drowning 	450 	350 	700 	1,250 	650 	230 	270 	3,900
Fires, burns 	400 	260 	240 	700 	800 	500 	700 	3,600
Suffocation by ingested object 	100 	20 	30 	250 	400 	500 	2,100 	3,400
Firearms 	20 	60 	150 	190 	110 	30 	40 	600
Poisoning by gases, vapors 	10 	10 	70 	120 	80 	40 	70 	400
All other causes 	700 	400 	1,100 	3,000 	3,200 	1,600 	4,500 	14,500
TOTAL 	2,700 	2,700 	13,800 	26,600 	19,500 	7,600 	24,400 	97,300

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

but it's one in four drivers. So why aren't cars banned?

Ummm what else can you do with a handgun? A car?

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

Accident Type  	Age
	0-4 	5-14 	15-24 	25-44 	45-64 	65-74 	75+ 	Total
All Automobile 	900 	1,500 	10,500 	13,300 	9,200 	2,700 	4,900 	43,000
Falls 	70 	70 	210 	950 	1,900 	1,700 	11,300 	16,200
Poisoning by solids, liquids 	60 	40 	800 	6,800 	3,200 	300 	500 	11,700
Pedestrian1 	250 	300 	750 	1,300 	1,400 	450 	850 	5,300
Drowning 	450 	350 	700 	1,250 	650 	230 	270 	3,900
Fires, burns 	400 	260 	240 	700 	800 	500 	700 	3,600
Suffocation by ingested object 	100 	20 	30 	250 	400 	500 	2,100 	3,400
Firearms 	20 	60 	150 	190 	110 	30 	40 	600
Poisoning by gases, vapors 	10 	10 	70 	120 	80 	40 	70 	400
All other causes 	700 	400 	1,100 	3,000 	3,200 	1,600 	4,500 	14,500
TOTAL 	2,700 	2,700 	13,800 	26,600 	19,500 	7,600 	24,400 	97,300

Thanks...ummm it's a bit hard to read and not exactly sure what it's stats from. Got links or source?

Gordon

Cool code, if you blur your eyes it looks like it's saying "HHHEEEELLPp"

Sparks

Hobbes wrote:

A better system would be to have gun control and better education, probably even a gun class. Certainly the NRA are in the best position to do this.

The NRA do this already. (The problem is it's not mandatory).

sovtek wrote:

Can you contrast the gun laws in Switzerland with the US? I seriously doubt that they are exactly the same.

No, they're not, and the difference (when you get to the core of it) is the level of training involved. The swiss, by and large, have training; the americans, by and large, don't (at least not past the informal stage).

Also target shooting is one thing, whilst running around your neighborhood with a Desert Eagle is altogether different.

Indeed. I wish you'd explain that to groups like IANSA, the GCN, or MAG...

I remember you making a statement in another gun control debate...something to the effect of "maybe Americans shouldn't own guns". I remember agreeing whole heartedly with that.

To be specific, that was because they could walk in and buy a gun without any training in how to use it. That is what causes accidents.
Gun crime on the other hand, is pretty much unaffected by legislation - which is why I think banning firearms is just a daft idea. It acts like a group punishment for all the law-abiding people from recreational shooters to hunters to farmers doing pest control to Olympic target shooters; and it doesn't affect criminals at all.

omnicorp wrote:

yes, exactly, and just because cars kill more, does that mean we shouldn't try and fix the problem?
How would the family of Danielle in England feel about that?

1) It means you should start with the biggest problem, because if you don't, you're not saving the most lives and that's morally bankrupt.
2) Danielle was shot as a result of a drug turf war, if the reports I've read are right. The gun that shot her was illegal to own. So how would a new law banning more guns make a difference?

See omni, it's daft idiots who think like that that caused Dunblane. If they'd listened to people after Hungerford, Dunblane wouldn't have happened. But instead, they took the easy way out, and banned a class of firearms - ignoring the fact that the problem wasn't the law, but the mental healthcare system. What happened as a result? Dunblane. Which was Hungerford with a different type of firearm. And what happens if you ban all firearms? Ikeda, that's what.

And it's exactly this same mistake that we're making in Ireland with the Barr Tribunal at the moment, so I'm not saying this cockily - I'm saying it with considerable worry on my mind.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

It is my understanding that the right to bear arms is to keep a well armed militia and to raise up if the government tries to take control.

That's what I remember reading. It was Jefferson, Franklin...can't remember that didn't believe in having a permanent standing army but instead have an armed militia ready to be called up.
However, IIRC it WASN'T the intention to allow all citizens to own guns.

A better system would be to have gun control and better education, probably even a gun class. Certainly the NRA are in the best position to do this.

I don't agree that the NRA are in the best position. I do agree that there should a license and training course for all guns...kinda like a driver's license. As well as thorough screening (and retention) of prospective buyers as well as waiting periods.

Sparks

sovtek wrote:

Thanks...ummm it's a bit hard to read and not exactly sure what it's stats from. Got links or source?

Sorry, I spent ten minutes trying to post the table in HTML code without success. Here is the original link. Note the source for the actual statistics is the National Safety Council in the US, and that the figures are for 2000.
But the basic drift is this:
For kids aged 0-14, 80 fatal accidents from guns. Out of 5,400 total fatal accidents for that year. That's 1.48% of all accidents. So if you ban firearms (a lengthy and costly procedure at best), you might reduce the number of accidents by 1.48% Now, while that's laudable as an isolated act, it's reprehensible to act on that 1.48% and ignore the 98.52% who still die. What about the 2,400 kids who die in car accidents? Why not start there, as it's the biggest killer of kids through accident?

Sparks

sovtek wrote:

However, IIRC it WASN'T the intention to allow all citizens to own guns.

That is a debate that's been running for decades over stateside...

I don't agree that the NRA are in the best position.

Well, who would be? The NRA's the biggest group of it's kind, they run safety courses and instructors courses all over the US - hell, we have a few NRA-qualified people here, that's how big their programmes are. Don't forget, the NRA you and I see daily is the top table who are scrapping with anti-gun groups and so are very polarised. That's not necessarily representative of the majority (remember, most NRA members are members so they can have the NRA's insurance cover). Of course, there are always the few, the idiotic, the unsafe, but the day we can say there's anywhere that has no sign of human stupidity, we'll be pointing towards somewhere with no humans...

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

Gun crime on the other hand, is pretty much unaffected by legislation - which is why I think banning firearms is just a daft idea. It acts like a group punishment for all the law-abiding people from recreational shooters to hunters to farmers doing pest control to Olympic target shooters; and it doesn't affect criminals at all.

Does that also mean you agree that people should be able to own handguns then?

Sparks

Yes sovtek. Not, mind you, without some degree of training. But don't forget - pistol shooting makes up a full third of the Olympic target shooting events. And it's the cheapest entry path into the sport. I know that you might be thinking of this:



But you have to remember, that these are pistols too:



The line between target pistols and sidearms is harder to point out the closer you get to it, but it does exist...

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

That is a debate that's been running for decades over stateside...


Well, who would be?

The state.

Sparks

But the state doesn't have any expertise in firearms safety sovtek!

Sparks

sovtek wrote:

Ummm what else can you do with a handgun? A car?

Ah, the "all guns are designed to kill" argument. Was wondering how long that'd take.

Here's an M-16. It's designed to kill humans in combat.


Here's my own rifle. It's designed to put a .22lr round through the center of an ISSF target 50m away. (The center part of the bullseye being about 11mm across).



Now, can you seriously tell me that you could do both jobs with either rifle?

Gordon

Sparks, sorry to butt in again, but - can you kill someone with your gun?

Sparks

Not such a simple question as it seems Gordon. To answer as honestly as I can, yes, but I couldn't use it as a weapon.

If, for example, I was to point it at your head and fire it, then there's a pretty good (but not 100%) chance I'd kill you (within, say, 100 metres). If I wanted to kill you with it though, my best chance would be to grab it by the end of the barrel and swing it at your head like a hurley. Seriously. It fires lightweight, sub-sonic ammo. Put it in the right place, and that bullet could kill you - but unless you were standing still, that'd be almost purely by chance. If it hit anywhere other than the cranium, the spinal cord above the neck, the major arteries (cartoid, aorta, fermoral) or the heart (and through an intercostial space at that), then you'd likely survive, assuming medical assistance was available. Hell, you might even survive if shot in those areas. These aren't hunting rounds we're talking about here - they're very low-power because the more kinetic energy, the less accurate you get. An M-16, on the other hand...

(Hmm. there's a photo out there that I've seen of a .22lr round and a 5.56mm round. Can't seem to find the sodding thing. So here's a .50 cal, a 9mm, and a .22lr round all in the same photo instead. Bear in mind; the .22lr cartridge (the smallest of the three) is not full of propellant - it's only a third to a half full. The 5.56x45 round the M-16 uses is about half the size of the .50 calibre round here).


(The point being, of course, that different bullets are designed to do different things. Saying that they can all kill you is as correct as saying that all cars can kill you.)

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

Okay, so first things first - the US isn't the biggest example of a gun culture, Switzerland is. JC can confirm, but shooting is a rather large sport there. And yet, they have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world.

Just to clarify...

Switzerland has - I believe - the highest rate of gun possession in the world but only when you include the military-issue rifles held by all who are doing military service. If you exclude those rifles, it drops off top spot by quite a large margin, but still has significant gun ownership.

There is - unrusprisingly - a strong correlation between those who "do" gun-sports and those who do (or have done) military service. Moreover, everyone doing military service must do an obligatory qualifying shoot once a year. This would again make the "popularity" of gun-sports perhaps overstated, assuming it is included in the figures.

Regardless, the underlying point Sparks makes is perfectly correct. There is a very low gun-related-crime rate over here, and (perhaps even more surprisingly) military-issue weapons are rarely used in crime (twice in the last decade, if not longer, from what I know).

A lot of it is training....definitely. The people who engage in shooting-sports over here have - by and large - all been taught "the hard way" about guns (by which I mean they were taught during military service). They were taught to always respect their weapons, and even to hate them (in the case of hte military-issue rifle) long before they had a chance to go off and get themselves a personal sidearm/rifle for whatever reason they felt like.

While I wouldn't necessarily advocate compulsary military service as a pre-requisite to gun-ownership, I would say that its at the opposite end of the spectrum to the "wait 48 hours and you can have your gun" approach in the US (or however long the cool-off period is noowadays).

But ultimately, going back to Omni's assertion that its the Constitution that he feels is anachronistic and just plain wrong.....and I just don't see it. I don't think there is a fundamental problem with having the right to bear arms. I think there's a fundamental problem with having the right to obtain arms to bear - and subsequently bearing them - in the absence of sufficient safeguards to ensure you'll act responsibly.

jc

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

Ah, the "all guns are designed to kill" argument. Was wondering how long that'd take.

AH no... its not what I said.
But a car is a very different animal to a gun (obviously) and they aren't designed to kill something. While there are target shooting rifles...I dare you to find alot of those in the average Texans' arsenal.
You can't drive a Desert Eagle or a Berreta 9mm.
Even if you weren't killed by your target rifle I seriously doubt you would forget the day you were shot with it.
Secondly much care is taken with cars....millions are spent on car safety on the vehicle itself (collapsable steering columns, shatterproof glass, airbags...etc etc). Not to mention whole government departments with the duty of road safety (DPS, DOT).

OH yea...nice pics...especially the ejected shell caught in midair.
Liked it.

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

But the state doesn't have any expertise in firearms safety sovtek!

ATF? That doesn't mean that it can't hire people that do. I don't think a gun club should be responsible for issuing licenses. That's the states job.

therecklessone

bonkey wrote:

There is - unrusprisingly - a strong correlation between those who "do" gun-sports and those who do (or have done) military service. Moreover, everyone doing military service must do an obligatory qualifying shoot once a year. This would again make the "popularity" of gun-sports perhaps overstated, assuming it is included in the figures.

Thats an interesting point, and relates to something I was thinking of last night. Does anyone know of a correlation between military service and membership of the NRA in the US (picking the NRA as an example of the pro-gun lobby, but I think its as good an example as I can think of). Any figures for a percentage of the NRA who have served in the military?

Just interested.

Sparks

sovtek wrote:

But a car is a very different animal to a gun (obviously) and they aren't designed to kill something.

Neither are many firearms - and most of those designed to kill are designed to kill animals, not humans (though they'll do a nasty job on humans). There are relatively few firearms designed for use on humans in combat.

While there are target shooting rifles...I dare you to find alot of those in the average Texans' arsenal.

Yes, but that's more due to Texans rather than due to firearms!

Even if you weren't killed by your target rifle I seriously doubt you would forget the day you were shot with it.

True enough. I wouldn't forget the day someone drove into me either!

Secondly much care is taken with cars....millions are spent on car safety on the vehicle itself (collapsable steering columns, shatterproof glass, airbags...etc etc). Not to mention whole government departments with the duty of road safety (DPS, DOT).

And likewise, safety is important in firearms also - better materials, better construction, all designed so the firearms doesn't go off in the user's face, safety devices so the firearm has to be held properly and deliberately fired, and so on. But, just like cars, you can't build in a safety feature that prevents people pointing them at other people.
There are, however, whole government departments with a duty to prosecute and convict any people who do so!

OH yea...nice pics...especially the ejected shell caught in midair.
Liked it.

Not my favorite rifle, I have to say. I've got a personal dislike of firearms designed to kill humans. Me, I'll stick to my single-shot bolt-action, designed-for-the-Olympic-games .22 caliber rifle, thanks
(And maybe an olympic air pistol in a few months).

Sparks

sovtek wrote:

ATF? That doesn't mean that it can't hire people that do. I don't think a gun club should be responsible for issuing licenses. That's the states job.

Well, the ATF's pretty much seen over stateside as the ERU is seen here...
(In other words, people who know about firearms don't think much of them from a safety point of view).

But the NRA's not a gun club, they're a national governing body and lobby group; and having them run safety courses is a lot less dangerous than (say) letting any tom, dick or harry run driving courses in Ireland...

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

it's reprehensible to act on that 1.48% and ignore the 98.52% who still die. What about the 2,400 kids who die in car accidents? Why not start there, as it's the biggest killer of kids through accident?

What about the hidden statistics you don't mention, how many of the kids who were killed in car accidents or drowned etc etc were fleeing for their lives from a gunman ?

civdef

bananayoghurt wrote:

What about the hidden statistics you don't mention, how many of the kids who were killed in car accidents or drowned etc etc were fleeing for their lives from a gunman ?

You must be a lawyer.....

That's not a compliment either.

civdef

The gun-death statistics from the USA are frequently quoted. Some aspects get left out though. For example, many of the times you hear X numbers of children were killed by guns, they don't mention their definition of "child" can be up to the age of 21.

A fair chunk of the violent deaths due to handguns occur in deprived urban areas - coincidentally - many of these areas have stringent gun bans - New York City, Washington DC etc.

Sparks

bananayoghurt wrote:

What about the hidden statistics you don't mention, how many of the kids who were killed in car accidents or drowned etc etc were fleeing for their lives from a gunman ?

If that's a joke, it's actually rather funny

bonkey

civdef wrote:

A fair chunk of the violent deaths due to handguns occur in deprived urban areas - coincidentally - many of these areas have stringent gun bans - New York City, Washington DC etc.

Which leads nicely back to Sparks' point about the legality or otherwise not being a deterrant.

Are there any figures, incidentally, for comparing criminal use of legally-registered guns (by those who own them), criminal use of legally-registered guns (by those who got their hands on them without comitting a crime...such as Little Johnny picking up Dad's hunting rifle etc.), use of ilegal weapons (by default criminal), and so forth?

jc

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Sparks
But thirdly, and this is the doozy, there's the small problem that gun control laws don't work. All they do is regulate the firearms owned by law-abiding people, not the ones owned by criminals; and the ones owned by criminals are the ones that cause the problems.

Look at it this way, okay? Illegal possession of a firearm carries a sentence of two or three years at most in most countries. Murder carries a sentence of between ten years and life imprisonment (or the death penalty). Now, if you're willing to risk the second penalty, why would the first one even give you pause for thought?

Sparks, I reject the idea that gun-control laws have no effect in curtailing guns in practice. That sort of argument is almost like saying that children should be allowed to carry guns into a school, because after all simply carrying guns is not harmful in itself! And look at what happened at Columbine!

Rights come with responsibilities. The NRA are even opposed to background-checks on those buying arms to ensure that criminals aren't buying them. When the Democrats last controlled the US Congress, they pushed through the The Brady Handgun Control Act (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blbradyact.htm) , under which background-checks on those buying arms were imposed for those buying in gun-stores. However, these rules do not apply to guns sold at fairs, and the US Republicans have repeatedly blocked attempts to extend background-checks to include guns sold at fairs. In effect, they are helping Al Qaeda by allowing their members to come to the US, buy weapons, and go undetected. This is stupidity and irresponsibility on an almost criminally negligent scale in my opinion.

It only takes 1 madman to massacre scores of people with a handgun. If only 1 out of hundreds or even thousands fall into that category, then I feel that is 1 too many, and that the right to life of the rest of us should not be compromised by fulfilling a supposed right to bear arms. The origin of the "right to bear arms" part of the US constitution lies, along with the archaic Electoral College, in the 18th century mindset of the founders of the United States. They placed this into the Constitution because they feared that Britain or some other European imperial power might return and try to reconquer them. The time for that kind of worry is incredibly outdated now. I think that where you have opinions based on certain assumptions, that you are not being inconsistent in changing those opinions where the assumptions no longer hold true. It is manifest from Columbine and similar instances that the right to bear arms is not worth the risk it poses to the right of everyone to life.

I personally would not feel safe walking down a street in a country where arms are easy to come by.

civdef

Not sure about that Bonkey. I suspect that the legal guns are used far less often in crime than the illegal ones, going on pattterns seen elsewhere in the world, including Ireland.

The USA has some impressively strict firearms laws - e.g. anyone convicted of a felony is banned from ever possessing a firearm again.

civdef

arcadegame2004 wrote:

In effect, they are helping Al Qaeda by allowing their members to come to the US, buy weapons, and go undetected.

Al Queda seem to prefer stanley knives. The IRA did most of their atrocities with fertiliser and diesel.

If only 1 out of hundreds or even thousands fall into that category, then I feel that is 1 too many, and that the right to life of the rest of us should not be compromised by fulfilling a supposed right to bear arms.

Apply this arguent consistently and you'll restrict use of cars to people on essential business, who have had extensive training etc etc.

It's also been pointed out that doctors kill many more people annualy in the US through malpractice than guns do, shall we ban them too?

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by civdefNot sure about that Bonkey. I suspect that the legal guns are used far less often in crime than the illegal ones, going on patterns seen elsewhere in the world, including Ireland.

The Dunblane massacre in 1996 was carried out with a legally-held firearm. It only takes one person to use a legally-held firearm to kill people. Only the law-enforcement authorities should be allowed to hold arms in this country. I fail to see why people in the US need machine guns to defend themselves when each state has a national guard and they are protected by the world's best armed-forces.

The idea that because something was originally in the first Constitution of a country that it must remain there forever is nonsense. Had we taken such an attitude in this country, divorce, contraception, and homosexuality would still be illegal. I agree with whoever said on this thread that the US should come out of the 18th century.

Apply this arguent consistently and you'll restrict use of cars to people on essential business, who have had extensive training etc etc.

Cars are not for the purposes of killing! Guns are. Big difference.

civdef

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The Dunblane massacre in 1996 was carried out with a legally-held firearm. It only takes one person to use a legally-held firearm to kill people.

In that case he shouldn't have had the licence, if the regulations had been properly administered.

I fail to see why people in the US need machine guns to defend themselves when each state has a national guard and they are protected by the world's best armed-forces.

They aren't allowed machine guns for self defence. On the second bit, how does having the world's best armed forces defend you against a rapist or a violent burglar in your home?

Cars are not for the purposes of killing! Guns are. Big difference.

The families of the hundreds of people killed by cars in Ireland alone every year might beg to differ.

the_syco

omnicorp wrote:

I think it's time for the US to grow up and realise that Indians aren't going to ambush them, they've got no morte slaves to control, no more Britain to fight... They are SAFE!

Aye, except for Anit-Aircraft missiles. You never know when a plane may miss the runway, and hit a tall building :rolleyes:

Also, they need to keep pistols, and a few semi's. Get rid of the full auto's of the streets. All the law-abiding people may hnad in their guns, but the criminals won't. You can hold up a shop here with a knife. Unless you know that the guy behind the counter doesn't have a gun under the counter in the states, you ain't gonna try to ro him. Oh, and before you say "he won't need a gun, if all guns are banned", see my above statement about the criminals keeping their guns. Most gun nuts will agree with taking all of the full auto's out of the streets, as there's no need for them.

=====

The ONLY way to make people feel safe is to a Canda job. Lots of trigger happy cops, everywhere. It has fairly low crime, I'm told.

civdef

the_syco wrote:

Get rid of the full auto's of the streets.

That was achieved in the USA with the Gun Control Act of 1934, well for the law abiding at least. As you point out, criminals don't worry too much about these laws.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

If that's a joke, it's actually rather funny

Sparks

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Sparks, I reject the idea that gun-control laws have no effect in curtailing guns in practice.

It's not my assertion arcade, it's documented fact, as well as being common-sense. Look at the UK handgun ban and tell me it prevented Danielle being shot!

That sort of argument is almost like saying that children should be allowed to carry guns into a school, because after all simply carrying guns is not harmful in itself! And look at what happened at Columbine!

It certainly is not.
It's exactly like saying that a line written on a piece of paper will not stop a criminal from committing a crime. You stop crime through law enforcement, not writing new laws. It's already illegal to murder someone; should we have different laws covering each and every method that can be used to commit murder, or should we enforce the existing laws saying it's illegal?

In effect, they are helping Al Qaeda by allowing their members to come to the US, buy weapons, and go undetected. This is stupidity and irresponsibility on an almost criminally negligent scale in my opinion.

So al quaeda are buying AK-47s in the US (which is illegal without a licence, by the way) for $700 a pop or more, instead of buying them in Kabul for about $7 a pop?
I find that rather unlikely. And if I wanted to buy a firearm to kill humans with, I wouldn't be buying an AK-47 anyway, I'd be buying things like US army sniper rifles (perfectly legal), handguns (perfectly legal), or illegal firearms on the black market (Mac-10s, Uzis, fully-auto AKs, etc, etc.).
None of these are affected by legislation.

If only 1 out of hundreds or even thousands fall into that category, then I feel that is 1 too many, and that the right to life of the rest of us should not be compromised by fulfilling a supposed right to bear arms.

First, it's not a supposed right in the US, it's a fundamental part of their constitution and it is a right there.

Second, how long ago was it that one man drove a car down a pedestrian street (Henry street if memory serves) in dublin and injured dozens of people? Shouldn't we ban cars on that basis since 1 out of hundreds or thousands of drivers might be mentally unstable? (Remember, 1 in 4 drivers in the US commits an act of violence in their lifetime compared to 1 in 10,000 firearms owners).
Give you an Irish statistic to chew on; the last target shooting-related injury in Ireland happened in 1801. That's 203 years without someone getting shot because of target shooting (I'm looking at target shooting here, hunting is somewhat more risky because it's not on a formal range and so on). Last year alone saw 367 people killed on our roads because of car accidents and several thousand injured, according to the NRA (no, not that one ).
If you ask me, there's a better case to ban cars than there is to ban guns...

They placed this into the Constitution because they feared that Britain or some other European imperial power might return and try to reconquer them.

The counter-argument (and really, we're running through a set-piece here, this has been debated for literally decades in the US) is that they were more worried about their own government becoming like the UK or other european powers of the day.

It is manifest from Columbine and similar instances that the right to bear arms is not worth the risk it poses to the right of everyone to life.

Of course, the argument with those kind of things is that legally held firearms save lives. There was a school shooting at a law school a few years after columbine where a teacher went to his car, took a legally-held handgun from the safe in the boot, went back into the school and stopped a mentally unbalanced student who was shooting other students. He didn't even have to shoot him.
So how do you reconcile those incidents?

I personally would not feel safe walking down a street in a country where arms are easy to come by.

I'm sitting within ten feet of two rifles in a gun safe. There are 40,000+ other such rifles in the country, and 160,000+ shotguns, all legally held. I wouldn't say they were easy to come by, but they're certainly not hard to get:
How to get a firearms certificate.

Sparks

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The Dunblane massacre in 1996 was carried out with a legally-held firearm.

Obtained by someone who had lied on his firearms certificate application form. He also had a firearm on the certificate which was illegal. He also had several reported incidents prior to Dunblane of having broken the firearms acts in the UK, including one where he pointed a firearm at a woman who had complained to the police when Hamilton had brought his firearms to her home to show off to her son (Hamilton was suspected at the time of being a paedophile).

It only takes one person to use a legally-held firearm to kill people.

It only takes one person to use a legally-owned car to kill people.
It only takes one person to use a legally-owned knife to kill people.
It only takes one person to use a legally-owned hurley to kill people.
It only takes one person to use a legally-owned baseball bat to kill people.
It only takes one person to use a legally-owned brick to kill people.
It only takes one person to use a legally-owned bag of fertiliser to kill people.

Which shall we ban first?

Only the law-enforcement authorities should be allowed to hold
arms in this country. I fail to see why people in the US need machine guns to defend themselves when each state has a national guard and they are protected by the world's best armed-forces.

Very few people actually own machine guns in the US.
And the fact that there's one firearm for every man, woman and child there paradoxically means that you need a firearm for self-defence!

The idea that because something was originally in the first Constitution of a country that it must remain there forever is nonsense.

Indeed, and no-one's ever argued otherwise. However, you need the votes of the majority to change the constitution in most countries, no?

Cars are not for the purposes of killing! Guns are. Big difference.

No difference at all. Last year's death tolls here were 367 for cars, 0 for legally-held firearms. Now you can argue about what each was designed for till you're blue in the face - the numbers won't change, the dead won't come back to life because they were killed by something that wasn't designed to kill them. (And you'll still be wrong - most guns aren't designed to kill humans).

I just don't get the thinking here arcade - you have a proven threat to life, acknowleged by the government; but you want to ban something that the Minister for Justice himself has defended in the Dail?

omnicorp

I actualy think that car possesion should be more restricted.
Humans survived tens of thousands of years without cars, it's likely that they'll contribute to global warming which could, in turn, pose serious implications for life on Earth.

Moriarty

There's a different angle that people haven't brought up yet..

If, say, Europe and the US both banned civilians from having firearms, how much harder would it be for criminals - which, after all, are more often than not used as a justification for the status-quo - to lay their hands on one? A fair bit. If it was expanded worldwide, even harder.

Banning firearms in countrys that already allow their citizens to own them at a national level is indeed an exercise in futility. However, banning them internationally would have a massive effect on gun crime. That won't happen any time soon though because a fair proportion of the planet enjoy their love affair with the gun.

Sparks

Sorry Moriarty, but you're wrong; as the UK and Australia have shown, you can ban a class of firearm, collect all of them and destroy them, and within a few years you'll have an even bigger gun crime problem.

Thing is, you see, criminals don't buy firearms from registered firearms dealers. They smuggle in illegal weapons so they're not easily tracable. Gun laws only affect those who follow them, don't forget.

omnicorp

but what if, for instance, a burglar with no weapon sneaks into a house, the owner tries to stop him using a gun but the burglar wrestles the gun off the owner and shoots him?

sovtek

Sparks wrote:

Neither are many firearms - and most of those designed to kill are designed to kill animals, not humans (though they'll do a nasty job on humans). There are relatively few firearms designed for use on humans in combat.

Are you saying that most guns aren't designed to kill something?

Yes, but that's more due to Texans rather than due to firearms!

And I believe the thread title is the "US Consitution.....right to bare arms"
Texas is a state in which country?

And likewise, safety is important in firearms also - better materials, better construction, all designed so the firearms doesn't go off in the user's face, safety devices so the firearm has to be held properly and deliberately fired, and so on. But, just like cars, you can't build in a safety feature that prevents people pointing them at other people.

Then you would be arguing for better public transport and less reliance on cars. However, gun control is another subject IMHO.

There are, however, whole government departments with a duty to prosecute and convict any people who do so!

But there isn't comparable legislation and strict gun control laws in the US. On gun makers...it's virtually nil.

Not my favorite rifle, I have to say. I've got a personal dislike of firearms designed to kill humans. Me, I'll stick to my single-shot bolt-action, designed-for-the-Olympic-games .22 caliber rifle, thanks
(And maybe an olympic air pistol in a few months).

Great. But your gun isn't the major problem in the US.