Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

This is a terrible tragedy. I'm reminded of the Dunblane primary school massacre in mid 90s that got handguns banned in all forms in the UK, so I don't think the 2nd amendment is going to emerge from this unscathed. I'll offer no comment on it, seeing as it's up to the American people to decide what's best for their country.

I will, however, put this to you. Obama sheds tears today for the children lost. Understandably so, if I was in his position I would. But I ask you this: has Obama shed any tears for the 160+ children killed in US drone attacks in Pakistan since 2006, the majority of whom under his presidency? One wonders.

No... As far as the US Military is concerned the ideals of the United States do not apply.

You think Drones was the only thing the US ever done to kill a lot of innocent people with full knowledge that this would happen? Heck no! they do it all the time and they do not keep it secret.

Thus it isn't really related to the subject. Since the Military runs by a different logic then politics.

The guy who did this didn't own a gun lawfully. He stole one and shot his mother. What's to prevent someone from stealing a Swiss gun? Smuggle some ammo out of a range, steal a gun, shoot.

It means that shootings will still happen but they will happen less... possibly.

[FearfulJesuit]

This is a terrible tragedy. I'm reminded of the Dunblane primary school massacre in mid 90s that got handguns banned in all forms in the UK, so I don't think the 2nd amendment is going to emerge from this unscathed.

O, naïve European.

I don't mean to be dismissive, at all, because anywhere else in the world, probably, any similar blanket protection of guns would be similarly questioned. But the Constitution is sacred to Americans that no other constitution is.

The Second Amendment will be fine. It's hard to imagine it ever being repealed...though, of course, in 1812 it would have struck most observers as outright barmy to think that slavery would be dead within a lifetime.

[Neonivek]

Besides there are a lot of gun owners in the USA. How are they going to take away all their guns?

The logistics of such a repeal is what stops the US-Government from even seriously considering it.

[Owlbread]

I will, however, put this to you. Obama sheds tears today for the children lost. Understandably so, if I was in his position I would. But I ask you this: has Obama shed any tears for the 160+ children killed in US drone attacks in Pakistan since 2006, the majority of whom under his presidency? One wonders.

...do we really need to add another fire to this thread? I understand your problem with the drone attacks, but isn't this thread vitriolic enough without adding another argument to it that's only tangentially related?

I'm sorry, but I just thought it had to be said.

No... As far as the US Military is concerned the ideals of the United States do not apply.

You think Drones was the only thing the US ever done to kill a lot of innocent people with full knowledge that this would happen? Heck no! they do it all the time and they do not keep it secret.

Thus it isn't really related to the subject. Since the Military runs by a different logic then politics.

The US military is an extension of the US government, just as it is in most developed countries. It is inextricably tied to politics and if it doesn't follow the same logic then that's a problem for the government to sort out. Obama isn't commander in chief of the US armed forces for nothing. Also, the drones were just one example I wanted to put to you. I know at this time people's thoughts should be with the victims' families, but we can't ignore something like that.

[Urist_McDrowner]

This is a terrible tragedy. I'm reminded of the Dunblane primary school massacre in mid 90s that got handguns banned in all forms in the UK, so I don't think the 2nd amendment is going to emerge from this unscathed.

O, naïve European.

I don't mean to be dismissive, at all, because anywhere else in the world, probably, any similar blanket protection of guns would be similarly questioned. But the Constitution is sacred to Americans that no other constitution is.

The Second Amendment will be fine. It's hard to imagine it ever being repealed...though, of course, in 1812 it would have struck most observers as outright barmy to think that slavery would be dead within a lifetime.

Now we're comparing gun ownership to slavery?

[Fayrik]

Now we're comparing gun ownership to slavery?

Why not? The comparison stated fits rather well. Of course it's not a perfect comparison, but I doubt you're going to be coming up with any comparisons of historic changes of US law any time soon.

[fqllve]

The guy who did this didn't own a gun lawfully. He stole one and shot his mother. What's to prevent someone from stealing a Swiss gun? Smuggle some ammo out of a range, steal a gun, shoot.

My point is, guns don't seem to make ANY difference. And arming the law abiding citizenry, as Switzerland did, is not hurting them at all.

And giving them loads and loads of training and having target shooting as almost a national sport there.

Besides, just because they have gun proliferation and low crime doesn't mean that it's the guns lowering crime rates just like the opposite isn't true in the US. Switzerland has less crime in general (specifically drug crime).

[sneakey pete]

As well as that, the rifles are kept locked up at home unless they are at training. So its not like said guns are being used to *stop* shootings. You can't use Switzerland as an example of how allowing people to carry guns would stop shootings. You can use it as an example of how people having guns in general doesn't instantly make them turn into crazy shooting spree shooters.

[FearfulJesuit]

It's a valid comparison only insofar as both gun culture and slavery are/were large-scale, nationally divisive institutions that both look(ed) like they could never be overthrown because there's too much inertia for them ever to die out.

But gun culture will be much harder to get rid of. There were lots of slaves, but the only group that stood to really lose from the end of slavery was the Southern aristocracy, who were a small if rich and politically influential group. (Sure, there were also lots more whites who owned a couple slaves- but these were generally on smaller farms or as housework, which could easily be transitioned to domestic servants or sharecropping. It was only the plantations where the entire system was completely devastated.)

47% of Americans own guns. So...maybe it'll be even harder, if not impossible.

[Urist_McDrowner]

The guy who did this didn't own a gun lawfully. He stole one and shot his mother. What's to prevent someone from stealing a Swiss gun? Smuggle some ammo out of a range, steal a gun, shoot.

My point is, guns don't seem to make ANY difference. And arming the law abiding citizenry, as Switzerland did, is not hurting them at all.

And giving them loads and loads of training and having target shooting as almost a national sport there.

Besides, just because they have gun proliferation and low crime doesn't mean that it's the guns lowering crime rates just like the opposite isn't true in the US. Switzerland has less crime in general (specifically drug crime).

It does show that gun control is irrelevant. Lots of countries with gun control have more gun crime than the Swiss (all of Europe), and a few more than the US.

[Frumple]

No, it doesn't show that. Not really much else to say beyond that.

[PanH]

It does show that gun control is irrelevant. Lots of countries with gun control have more gun crime than the Swiss (all of Europe), and a few more than the US.

I'd like to see your numbers of mass shooting in countries with gun control compared to USA.

[Urist_McDrowner]

As well as that, the rifles are kept locked up at home unless they are at training. So its not like said guns are being used to *stop* shootings. You can't use Switzerland as an example of how allowing people to carry guns would stop shootings. You can use it as an example of how people having guns in general doesn't instantly make them turn into crazy shooting spree shooters.

There is private ownership. And it requires a background check and a permit to get a handgun in Switzerland (like NY, how's their crime rate anyway? Oh, that's right). So why would anyone try and pull something in Switzerland, when they can just hop over to France?

[Max White]

I think Switzerland is a great example of how gun ownership is meant to work. You keep it locked up in a safe at home with no ammo in the house and only pull it out for sporting events. Also, to get one you need to pass various mental examinations. Gun safety is taught very carefully to all owners and above all, fire arms aren't there to shoot at people.

[Sir Finkus]

The guy who did this didn't own a gun lawfully. He stole one and shot his mother. What's to prevent someone from stealing a Swiss gun? Smuggle some ammo out of a range, steal a gun, shoot.

My point is, guns don't seem to make ANY difference. And arming the law abiding citizenry, as Switzerland did, is not hurting them at all.

And giving them loads and loads of training and having target shooting as almost a national sport there.

Besides, just because they have gun proliferation and low crime doesn't mean that it's the guns lowering crime rates just like the opposite isn't true in the US. Switzerland has less crime in general (specifically drug crime).

It does show that gun control is irrelevant. Lots of countries with gun control have more gun crime than the Swiss (all of Europe), and a few more than the US.

It really doesn't show anything.  Maybe it's conscription that causes the lower crime rates, maybe it's the beautiful scenery.  This also applies to the opposite argument about violence in America being caused by the liberal firearm laws.