Thread: Unconstitutional Action and Gun Laws

Originally Posted by PhatMan

Trey,

When it comes to legislation, and how far it can go, please remember us poor bastards in the UK; we had our hanguns and self-loading rifles (above 0.22 rimfire) banned

Watch out; it's a slippery slope !

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

And as my Gran always likes to say, when all guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns. If I ever make it to Prime Minister that ban is one law I'll be striking off!

Personally I think all the handgun ban did was stop the hobbyists and legal owners. If a gangster is going to shoot another gangster, do you think they care if the gun is legal? Of course not!

I'm all for concealed carry and arming the police. That way, when some idiot decides hes going to mug your granny, shes going to pull a .38 on the guy. And so will all the other people on the street. And the policeman on the corner.

I reckon that'd make most criminals think twice! But the fact is they know they're untouchable and 99.9% of the people who they attack will be unarmed and put up little fight. And thats why we have stories every day here of someone being murdered in a petty mugging, or for no reason at all, by some drunken lout. If they knew there was a good chance they'd get shot, they wouldnt try it!

Originally Posted by PhatMan

When it comes to legislation, and how far it can go, please remember us poor bastards in the UK; we had our hanguns and self-loading rifles (above 0.22 rimfire) banned

I'm not sure I believe we are worse off it, in terms of the entire population. When was the last time you randomly had a conversation about the general desire to own a gun, out side of a rifle range or with shooting buddies?

Most people couldn't care less.

Personally I would like shooting as a sport to be more popular, but I don't mind the fact few people privately own a gun when I'm walking through a city late at night for example. There is, effectively, a zero chance that I will have a gun shoved in my face and asked for my wallet in this country.

Also, I think what you have to remember is a govt. has a responsibility to do what it feels best for the people. If that means old rulings need to change, so be it. Stubear, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests arming a society reduces crime.

Originally Posted by gregs656

There is, effectively, a zero chance that I will have a gun shoved in my face and asked for my wallet in this country.

It seems to happen quite a lot in London, if the various newspapers and radio reports are to be believed, and its happened to me once outside of London.

If me and the other customers in the store had been armed it probably would have put those guys off before they even got there. After all, no ones going to risk getting shot for some small amount of cash.

I know the argument that it could have turned into a shoot out, but it could have anyway. I just thank God it didnt..! And if it had, I'd have wanted the chance to defend myself.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Stubear, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests arming a society reduces crime.

Limiting gun access does not reduce crime

The second paragraph reads:

"Places where handgun carry is more common are better off for it. FBI statistics illustrate the fact that states allowing concealed weapon carry have much lower rates of violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault than states with significant restrictions. Conversely, restricting or eliminating the right to carry inevitably causes gun-related crimes to increase. A perfect example is Australia, where the crime rate was dropping steadily for 25 years prior to 1996, when the government banned private ownership of most guns. Then, in 2000, armed robberies were up 45 percent and gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria were up 300 percent. A law in England that mandated handgun turn-in by 1998 produced similar results; in the five years following, total gun crimes almost doubled and gun homicides increased by 65 percent."

That's in the states.

Find me evidence that a society that was not previously armed, like ours, introduced guns and the crime went down.

It happens sometimes in London. How many people actually die though? After all, any one can buy a shotgun and hold up a place. We still posses the legal right to own a shotgun in this country, do you have one to defend your home with? Do you shoot regularly? Do you own a .22 rimfire and use it?

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in to help explain to AussiePostie what its about and my opinions.

When the 2nd amendment was written the people actually had the best state of the art guns, even better than what the militaries of the time were using, the government couldn't afford the costs per gun that many people considered necessary. When they were talking about arms that is what they meant.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Is this not what the police, national guard, army reserve and the big one the combined armed services are for? The average citizen would just be backup. Unless one of the above or all somehow become the enemy of the state and people! I suppose it has happened in some countries?

Actually it is exactly in case the people must stand up and defend their rights from any attack within or without. If you look at the number of "generals" who have made themselves president for life after controlling a countries military in defiance of the elected government you can see why it is good to have a back up plan to protect the elected government or even remove it should it be that which attacks the God given (or natural if you don't believe in God) rights of the people.

The reason they felt it was important is really easy to see. They were just coming out of a period where they fought a war against the government. Our founding fathers weren't disloyal to the British government most of them had friends and even relatives still in England. The reason they revolted was because the British Government kept placing more and more demands on them, higher and higher taxes, more and more restriction until they felt that it was no longer working for them as citizens and simply using them to enrich itself. When this happens people lose their loyalty fast and decide to find a different government (Something our current government here ought to pay attention to).

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

The U.S.A must be the only western country in the world that legally allows people to own military grade weapons and is it legal to have militia training camps.

Nope, the Swiss actually require the ownership of military rifles for all men and their participation in training. Firearm sports are also popular in Finland another country that knows the value of an armed and trained populace.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Considering you have the most modern and powerfull military force in the world protecting you, does the average citizen really need such powerfull weapons for personal defence and if the answer is yes, is that not saying something about the state of society and the nation in general?

It says something about the desire to remain free and to know that you will never be a subject but always a citizen. The more powerful the weapon that is in the hands of the government the more powerful a one that needs to be in the hands of the citizen. You do realize that more people have been killed by their own governments than have been killed in all the wars ever fought with foreign powers.

Just so you are aware, most military personal firearms are no more powerful and most often less powerful than common hunting weapons. The "massive power" of military rifles is kinda a lie on the part of people who want to make sure you fear them and don't see a need for them. The reality is that a rifle designed to kill a Kangaroo at range is more accurate and more powerful than the one designed to kill a man in war.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Why not just join the reserves and be trained professionally to use the latest weapons and tactics in the defence of your country. My son is in the reserves here in OZ.He has his complete kit at home including a fully packed quick deployment case.The only thing he doesn,t have is his rifle.This is kept at the barrack,s and in this day and age I do not think anyone is going to invade the country that quick that he would not have time to aquire it.

Many people do belong to the reserves, but that has nothing to do with the right to bear arms for the common defense. The military is just one line of defense, it shields the people, should that line be reached the people need to be able to defend themselves as well as protect themselves from internal enemies like their own government as mentioned above or even the random crazy people.

Look up the Fort Hood Massacre that just happened over here recently to see what one crazy can do to soldiers without rifles. This is why being armed is a good idea for your own protection as well as the protection of others. Heck about 10 years ago a Japanese guy went nuts and started killing people with a kitchen knife in the subway He got 43 people before the police could get to him.


What the second amendment is is the guarantee of freedom for every citizen in the country. The people can talk about freedom, and their rights but without the power to back up the talk if a tyrant ever tries to take those rights it is nothing more than hollow words. A gun preferably a military grade gun gives each person the ability to defend their own freedoms from the tyrants who would take them, and anyone who wouldn't defend their own rights doesn't deserve to have them.

Originally Posted by gregs656

That's in the states.

Find me evidence that a society that was not previously armed, like ours, introduced guns and the crime went down.

It happens sometimes in London. How many people actually die though? After all, any one can buy a shotgun and hold up a place. We still posses the legal right to own a shotgun in this country, do you have one to defend your home with? Do you shoot regularly? Do you own a .22 rimfire and use it?

Hate to tell you this but your society is armed. Criminals will always be armed, if not with guns with rocks, or even their own fists.

So re-introducing the right of self-defense will make crime go down. You do realize that if a guy breaks into your house and you hit him with a frying pan, to keep him from killing you, that under current British law you will go to jail and he will not. Thats just insane.

Beyond getting self defense back guns level the playing field between the physically powerful and the physically weak. Used properly they allow the Grandma to defend her life from the hudlum who would harm her. Nothing more.

Of course they allow any citizen to be the equal of the military or the police and that is what your government is unwilling to allow. They feel they must control and "protect" you because you are incapable of doing it for yourself. Perhaps you are, but I'm not, I don't tolerate babying from my own mother let alone my government.

I dont think a society exists thats never been armed. Once the first person discovered gun powder, its basically been an arms race since then..!

And we are an armed society. The crooks are for sure, and you see police with submachine guns at high profile locations.

It does say in the quote though "A law in England that mandated handgun turn-in by 1998 produced similar results; in the five years following, total gun crimes almost doubled and gun homicides increased by 65 percent." And it also cites Australian stats where gun crime went up after a ban.

Now if we were to increase the presence of guns in society and gun related crime fell, that would rather prove the point that guns prevent crime. But it'll never happen because most people just have the mentality of "guns=bad" and no amount of persuasion will convince them otherwise.

I do shoot regularly, both rifle and shotgun. In fact I've shot target rifle at a national standard and I've been shotgun shooting since I was big enough to pick one up, so I do know what I'm talking about.

I've introduced many people to the sport over the years and not one of them has ever come away thinking shooting and guns should be banned. In fact, I've had friends who have been anti-gun come shooting and go away pro-gun. Most people when they try it realise that we're not a bunch of yahoos shooting up the countryside.

But not everyone can buy a shotgun or rifle. The police vet applicants very thoroughly and you need references from your doctor and other unbiased figures to vouch for you. People like your boss, your lawyer, your dentist, people who know you but would not be biased in your favour. Then the police interview you and examine the location where you plan to keep your weapons, as well as checking where you plan to use it. Any unsatisfactory answers and you wont get your licence.

In terms of deaths, 42 people were killed in 2008 in gun related crime and 15 of them in London. It doesnt sound much, but you try fitting 42 people in your kitchen and you'll see its quite a few!

But most crimes are committed with illegal weapons, usually pistols due to the ease of concealment, which have been illegal since 1998. So the handgun ban worked well then...?

My point is that banning guns doesnt actually prevent crime, it only stops the people who obey the law and criminals generally dont obey the law.

And I do think that most petty crooks would think twice about robbing someone if they knew there was a good chance that their intended victim and/or a passer by would be armed!

There is a difference between wepons for personal defense, and for waging war. I am not against people having guns. But I think there is no reason for civilians to have military grade weapons. There is an army for that purpose.

Sorry guys, try this, find me a society, like ours that does not have widespread GUN ownership and then gun ownership becomes legal and many conceal and carry etc etc and crime figures fall.

I do not dispute the fact that we are armed as a society, and I used armed, perhaps wrongly but fairly obviously in the context of this thread, to refer specifically to guns.

I do not believe it would help. I do not believe it helps any where else in the world. I think that citing figures directly after a change of anything is basically pointless because it takes time for society to adjust to change and for those ignoring new laws to be punished.

We have a legal right to own a shotgun, the police need to have a damn good reason not to give you a license.

I would say 42 is pretty good actually. In fact, we have a fantasitcly low level of gun related homicide. If you can find the stats, the US is some where around 4 per 100,000, we are around 0.1 - 0.2 per 100,000.

Just for the record, I'm actually pro gun, I just don't believe they are gods gift to a safe society and I wish people wouldn't use what is such a clearly wear argument to lobby pro gun. Ultimately, there is no need to defend your self with a gun if no one else has one, and generally speaking that is true right now in this country. I know that is difficult for someone who does not live in a largely gun free society to understand.

Personally, I think we should throw away guns and go back to swords. That would be much more interesting.