Print

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

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Dwarf]

Currently, a lot of stuff is based on cars. They are a necessary 'evil'.

Guns are not used for anything, rifles etc. that is, as already mentioned.

[Lord Dakoth]

Rifles are not useful to anyone but hunters and only these who should have them, because, frankly, no one else has a bloody use for them (as stated a few words ago). If they are not useful, why should they be openly available? Hell, you can even buy sniper rifles on the internet.
It is easy for anyone to acquire such a weapon, and that is a risk.

Rifles are, in fact, useful. If an armed individual breaks into my house, a rifle will provide a much more effective deterrent than a frying pan or a threat of lawsuit.

[Aqizzar]

Against a burglar dumb enough to break into a home while the owner is there, and slow-witted enough for you to get the drop on him, I'm pretty sure a pop-gun would work just as well.

[MrWiggles]

Practicality is a poor metric to judge legality.

Guns have a very practical use. Guns fill a variety of uses. Currently it is mostly luxury activity.  So are skate boards, dirt bikes, hang gliders, parachutes ect...

Yes, there is an inherent danger to having them around. Removing them doesn't reduce violence just gun related violence.

In the UK (if my memory serve well), guns are very control and near none existence though violent acts with weapons are about the same just mostly done with knives. To point that chain mail is issued to their Police as Kevlar is used here in the States. 
-=-

Particular for the US, the right to bear arms to overthrow the government is still paramount to gun ownership legality. Its an issue of suppose inalienable constitutional right.

The issue as I see it, for the second admenent(sp) it is a bit to vague. It just says arms, not how much, how large or gives a definition of arms.

The spirit of the right to bear amrs, would allow for the possession of armament to fight the US Gov. (That would man portable heavy artillery, grenades, land mines ect...). It letter promises no such thing.

And I do not feel its improper to regulate these arms. Registration (In terms of ownership, mgm. specifications ) has proven to be a great aid for law enforcement agencies.

I really don't see a clear middle ground though correctness. I can recognize the extreme of to loose of regulation and to much regulation. As of now and my understanding, I feel that its at a good level.

[Andir]

Practicality is a poor metric to judge legality.

My point exactly, but more succinct.

You can't just outlaw something because you don't see it's purpose or enjoy it's entertainment value.  Guns contribute so little to the death toll of the country that it's not funny.  If you want to outlaw something that kills more people each year, you should outlaw poor diets.

[Jreengus]

In the UK (if my memory serve well), guns are very control and near none existence though violent acts with weapons are about the same just mostly done with knives. To point that chain mail is issued to their Police as Kevlar is used here in the States. 

I'm curios as to how you view this as anything but an improvement. Police have guns, criminals don't. Furthermore you are less likely to be shot and more likely to be stabbed which given the choice I would definitely choose the second.

[RedKing]

Guns contribute considerably to the murder rate of the country that it's not funny. 

And yeah..it's not funny. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

[Earthquake Damage]

Police [in the UK] have guns, criminals don't.

Apparently the average street cop does not carry a gun.  Just sayin'.

[Andir]

In the UK (if my memory serve well), guns are very control and near none existence though violent acts with weapons are about the same just mostly done with knives. To point that chain mail is issued to their Police as Kevlar is used here in the States. 

I'm curios as to how you view this as anything but an improvement. Police have guns, criminals don't. Furthermore you are less likely to be shot and more likely to be stabbed which given the choice I would definitely choose the second.

They have more things to be worried about than guns...

In the US: 1,390,695 total crimes in 2005... (469.2 per 100,000 violent crimes)
In England/Wales: 5,555,174 total crimes in 2005... (1970 per 100,000 - crimes against a person)

But people don't worry as much about it  (http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics054.htm)... woohoo!

[Andir]

Guns contribute considerably to the murder rate of the country that it's not funny. 

And yeah..it's not funny. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

I wasn't.  More people are killed by their own poor diets than they are by guns.  Murder?  Sure.  Guns are great tools for that, but it doesn't make crime go up just because someone has access to the gun.  (See stats for UK above... they have gun bans in place, what's contributing to that murder rate?)

Don't blame the tool, blame the crime.

[Shades]

In the US: 1,390,695 total crimes in 2005... (469.2 per 100,000 violent crimes)
In England/Wales: 5,555,174 total crimes in 2005... (1970 per 100,000 - crimes against a person)

But people don't worry as much about it  (http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics054.htm)... woohoo!

Note the use of total uk crimes and only violent us crimes. Total us crimes are 296,410,404 for 2005. If your going to compare stats at least use the same ones.

[Andir]

In the US: 1,390,695 total crimes in 2005... (469.2 per 100,000 violent crimes)
In England/Wales: 5,555,174 total crimes in 2005... (1970 per 100,000 - crimes against a person)

But people don't worry as much about it  (http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics054.htm)... woohoo!

Note the use of total uk crimes and only violent us crimes. Total us crimes are 296,410,404 for 2005. If your going to compare stats at least use the same ones.

These are as close as it gets... look at the UK crime tables... crimes against a person (violent) does not include theft/etc.  So yes, those are valid.

[Shades]

These are as close as it gets... look at the UK crime tables... crimes against a person (violent) does not include theft/etc.  So yes, those are valid.

You need to recheck your numbers then. The number you used is not crime against a person (violent) for the uk. For a start police reported total crime was only 4.7 million and total BCS crime only came to 10million of which 3.9million where personal (including theft). Both these total crime numbers are lower than what you claim as "crimes against a person (violent)"

I can't even find where you got that 5.5 million number from, none of the tables seem to have it.

Edit: scary stat though, 27% of victims of violent crime have had repeat offences against them

[Dwarf]

Rifles are not useful to anyone but hunters and only these who should have them, because, frankly, no one else has a bloody use for them (as stated a few words ago). If they are not useful, why should they be openly available? Hell, you can even buy sniper rifles on the internet.
It is easy for anyone to acquire such a weapon, and that is a risk.

Rifles are, in fact, useful. If an armed individual breaks into my house, a rifle will provide a much more effective deterrent than a frying pan or a threat of lawsuit.

Oh please. If you're going to defend your home against a (as Aqizzar pointed out probably not very professional) burglar, why would you want a rifle? It's considerably less wieldy than a handgun and both does the job just right.

Also, every moron (not literally!) in the USA can get a gun. If they'd require licenses at least, but no...

[Vester]

(See stats for UK above... they have gun bans in place, what's contributing to that murder rate?)

Probably alcohol.