| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On gun control:
I´m from Germany, we had our mass murderer incidents as well. Erfurt 2002, Winnenden 2009, the last just one day after another incident in Alabama. In both cases, IIRC, the young men got access to the weapons illegally, the Erfurt case with a forged weapons permit, the Winnenden case with the fathers guns (who was licenced to have them). In any case, crimes with guns were almost always with guns which the criminal did obtain illegally, in these and other cases. But then, German weapons law is very restrictive to begin with, although I wonder why it is legal to buy a pump action gun at all in Germany (see the Erfurt case). It is basically illegal for any citizen to bear arms, and they are only sold if you have a permit (not easily obtained) and in specialized shops who know the laws. That does not mean that you are allowed to bear them in public - far from it. Normally, guns permits are issued only for sports and/or hunting purposes, and you have to keep them locked at home, with guns and ammunition separated.
Selling guns in supermarkets in unthinkable, and military-grade weapons like assault rifles are illegal anyway.
So, restrictive weapon laws won´t keep a criminal from using a gun in his crimes. But the liberal US gun laws do nothing to prevent those crimes, did they? In the Denver case, these laws made it alledgedly easier for the criminal to obtain them. I think that countries with restrictive weapon laws which are properly enforced have less gun injuries and killings than other countries.
The second amendment is centuries old. If you all buy a muzzle loader for your militia service, that would be fine IMO. I do think it is absurd to cling to centuries old legislation which was issued under completely different circumstances. There might be the need to revise that legislation, which was issued under the impression of a fight for independence AFAIK, where the need to fight for your home might come up momentarily. Every legislation needs revision to put it in a current context, as society changes all the time.
No one is going to assault the US or part of it these days in a way that a privately owned gun will make any difference. Defending your family? Yes, that may be an issue. But then, calling 911 and letting professionals handle it is normally the better option. (Of course I can think of scenarios where calling the police is not an option, but I doubt these are so common that it warrants everybody carrying a gun. If it is, the problems that led to this kind of society won´t probably be solved at gunpoint anyways.)
I think that restrictive gun laws reduce the chance of criminals getting guns in the first place, and lead to less gun crimes.
Stefan
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, see the constitution errs on the side of the many, not the few. A few random whackos using a firearm of any kind to kill people in no way means the entire rest of the populace can not use them responsibly.
Restrictive gun laws also prevent said responsible citizens from preventing crimes in progress (i.e. this).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank god the idiot that shot her used a gun and not a bomb.
Getting a bomb to work is not as easy as you'd think. The difficulty behind it has prevented the times square bombing and the london airport bombing, as well as innumerable 'well i would LIKE to blow up a lot of people but i really don't know how'
I think what needs to be kept in mind is that spree killings are the vast minority of murders. Gun laws can make these sorts of crimes relatively easy while still overall reducing the violent crime rate.
Thank god the idiot that shot her used a gun and not a bomb. If he had shown up and used a fertilizer truck bomb instead of the gun, a ton more people would have been hurt or killed.
I don't think taking guns away from people like Loughner will make a dent in killings; it might make them worse, as they are forced to resort to explosives to get their point across.
Furthermore, I don't think it is a good idea to restrict weapons to crazy people, even like Loughner, because the government could use any sign of unhappiness or suspicion as a basis for a decision to deny you your right to have a weapon. I think we need these weapons because we are the kinds of people who are one step away from fascism at any given point and if in the next generation or two, we go all Nazi Germany by throwing all of the Arabs into concentration camps or attempting to deport all of the Mexican Immigrants, they need to make sure that they have enough weapons to fight back. The ability to use an up your butt kind of law, like a no sale to the crazies law, would let the government come through and disarm the most capable fighters ahead of time.
+1
I don't think I ever would have written it exactly like this myself, but I like Citizen Wings's spunk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
although I wonder why it is legal to buy a pump action gun at all in Germany
Probably for hunting. Given its low rate of fire (because you have to pump it) range, and difficulty being concealed its probably one of the hardest guns to go on a shooting spree with. If you're going to allow guns at all this really is what you allow.
I think that countries with restrictive weapon laws which are properly enforced have less gun injuries and killings than other countries.
Likely true, but its hard to tell how much the actual gun restrictions themselves contribute to the difference, and how much is from the vast difference in economics between the counties. It can be hard to explain to a European just how bad off economically some parts of US cities are.
Most crimes involving guns are robberies and drug deals, not mass shootings.there might be the need to revise that legislation, which was issued under the impression of a fight for independence AFAIK
Well, first of all the constitution was originally intended as 'this is what the government is allowed to do' : it can do everything listed in the constitution, and do anything it needs in order to do everything in the constitution. For example, the government can set up a post office. Making it a crime to attack postal workers is a necessary and proper
ability to ensure that the post goes through. At first people didn't think a bill of rights was necessary at all because government didn't have the power to restrict speech or outlaw guns.By the time the constitution was signed the struggle for independence was over. The second amendment was to ensure people that if the federal government got too powerful that the people could rise up against it with force. Changing it would require amending the constitution, which would require a 2/3 majority vote from congress and THEN by 3/4 of the states. I believe an act of god is more likely and I'm an atheist.
But then, calling 911 and letting professionals handle it is normally the better option.
It isn't fast enough in most cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, restrictive weapon laws won´t keep a criminal from using a gun in his crimes. But the liberal US gun laws do nothing to prevent those crimes, did they? In the Denver case, these laws made it alledgedly easier for the criminal to obtain them. I think that countries with restrictive weapon laws which are properly enforced have less gun injuries and killings than other countries.
Not so. Switzerland, Canada, and Norway have guns everywhere, and not much gun violence. The reasons gun violence occurs revolve around economic and social matters that provide the motive to do such things in the first place. This is why a country with less economic and cultural tension than the US but a high rate of gun ownership can end up with a much lower gun crime rate than the US. We shoot each other because we have a lot of poverty and cultural upheaval, not because guns are available. Without guns, we'd just stab each other instead. Also, it should be noted that within the US, areas with more restrictive gun laws don't tend to have less gun crime than areas with more restrictive gun laws. This is because gun control has little effect on crime rates.
Yeah, see the constitution errs on the side of the many, not the few. A few random whackos using a firearm of any kind to kill people in no way means the entire rest of the populace can not use them responsibly.
Right. But then, there should be some kind of control to prevent (or at least reduce the likelyhood) the whackos from getting said guns IMO. I do understand that the US have a history of citizens being armed. Still, some control might be not bad.
Restrictive gun laws also prevent said responsible citizens from preventing crimes in progress (i.e. this).
That depends. We do not know why the man had a concealed weapons permit, and restrictive gun laws do not necessarily lead to no one owning a gun legally. (Again, I accept that the US are different in that regard.) And we do not know if one of the criminals might have been prevented from wielding a gun if there were more restrictive laws in place. The story how the man used his gun could indicate that he might have some kind of professional background, perhaps police or military.
Stefan
How many spree killing threads do we need? And why this one, which is actually quite old (though still dreadful) news?
I think that countries with restrictive weapon laws which are properly enforced have less gun injuries and killings than other countries.Likely true, but its hard to tell how much the actual gun restrictions themselves contribute to the difference, and how much is from the vast difference in economics between the counties. It can be hard to explain to a European just how bad off economically some parts of US cities are.
Most crimes involving guns are robberies and drug deals, not mass shootings.
Well, I did not think that mass shootings were an everyday occurrence, of course. Are robberies and drug crimes such a common occurrence? Of course, if you have a huge crime scene, weapon laws won´t do anything to better these situations. Then, indeed, as some posters implied, the problem is not gun ownership at all, but rather the state the US society apparently is in. I can´t judge this. From my visit to the US two years ago I had the impression that the media, especially TV, do foster the impression of a society under attack from within, probably exaggerated and verging on the paranoid.
Yeah, see the constitution errs on the side of the many, not the few. A few random whackos using a firearm of any kind to kill people in no way means the entire rest of the populace can not use them responsibly.Right. But then, there should be some kind of control to prevent (or at least reduce the likelyhood) the whackos from getting said guns IMO. I do understand that the US have a history of citizens being armed. Still, some control might be not bad.
Restrictive gun laws also prevent said responsible citizens from preventing crimes in progress (i.e. this).That depends. We do not know why the man had a concealed weapons permit, and restrictive gun laws do not necessarily lead to no one owning a gun legally. (Again, I accept that the US are different in that regard.) And we do not know if one of the criminals might have been prevented from wielding a gun if there were more restrictive laws in place. The story how the man used his gun could indicate that he might have some kind of professional background, perhaps police or military.
Stefan
Laws tend to be all or nothing things. You are allowed or not allowed to do soemthing. Laws with a bunch of caveats are even harder to enforce and clog up bureaucrasy and also usually do little toward the purpose they have been written. We have many laws like this.
The second anmendment says US citizens may keep and bear arms. So any law that would be passed would have to be very carefully worded, or be repealed due to being unconstitutional. I can understand why a foreigner would have trouble with our legislative process :)As to whether or not those criminals would have had access to guns, you'd have to ask yourself whether criminals would obey any gun legislation in the first place.
How many spree killing threads do we need? And why this one, which is actually quite old (though still dreadful) news?
I think the idea is that this is the spree killing thread for politrolls and the other spree killing thread is for politroll-haters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not so. Switzerland, Canada, and Norway have guns everywhere, and not much gun violence.
In Switzerland, it was mandatory for every male having served his time in the army to have his gun at home AFAIK. Today, this is optional, and the ammunition is not given out anymore. Switzerland does indeed seem to have a high number of guns in private ownership, with probably as much as one gun for every second citizen. Abuse is very rare, and most often happens as suicide.
So, a high rate of gun violence probably points to severe societal problems. In that case, would it not be responsible to make the access to guns more difficult to reduce the tendency to solve these problems at gunpoint?
. In that case, would it not be responsible to make the access to guns more difficult to reduce the tendency to solve these problems at gunpoint?
IF the country functioned as one sane reasonable entity trying to do the right thing yes that would make sense. However what we have is functionally an oligarchy. The people that have the ability to make that kind of change in society are the ones that would not benefit from it (in fact they'd have to pay for it) , and the ones that would benefit from it have no power to change it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Laws tend to be all or nothing things. You are allowed or not allowed to do soemthing. Laws with a bunch of caveats are even harder to enforce and clog up bureaucrasy and also usually do little toward the purpose they have been written. We have many laws like this.
Well, in todays world, all-or-nothing laws are seldom the right answer, as society is too complex for simple answers.
The second anmendment says US citizens may keep and bear arms. So any law that would be passed would have to be very carefully worded, or be repealed due to being unconstitutional. I can understand why a foreigner would have trouble with our legislative process :)
It does not say anything about instituting something like a process that proves that you are indeed able to bear arms, does it? Plus, these constitutional rights can apparently be revoked if you are a criminal?
As to whether or not those criminals would have had access to guns, you'd have to ask yourself whether criminals would obey any gun legislation in the first place.
Well, with that argument, you can void any legislation. A criminal will have ways to obtain a gun if he has enough criminal energy. But if they can´t just walk into the next supermarket and buy one legally, it might stop some petty criminals from getting one. And if you happen to be caught owning a illegaly obtained gun, your trouble deepens.
But then, calling 911 and letting professionals handle it is normally the better option.And when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
I cannot help but wonder just how often the average US citizen is a crime victim? From some statements, I get the impression that everybody gets robbed/assaulted/threatened/shot/your home burglarized at a daily basis in the US. I do recall that the US has a comparatively high crime rate, but is it truly an anarchic war zone?
It does not say anything about instituting something like a process that proves that you are indeed able to bear arms, does it?
Yes it does. Since bearing arms is a right, any time the government says no to it they're infringing on your rights, which they can't do except in response to a crime.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise, all it is good for is attacking people.
Thats what it is built for in the first place - attacking living beings, with the intent to kill them. Perhaps that is why I don´t like the idea of everyone having the right to bear arms - it is basically a statement that "I can kill anybody anytime".
It does not say anything about instituting something like a process that proves that you are indeed able to bear arms, does it? Plus, these constitutional rights can apparently be revoked if you are a criminal?
There are several processes in place. I know of no state where you can just get a firearm without some kind of a permit, meaning you acquired one from a court house or local police department. They do a background check before you get one. I had to have one, and wait a few days when I bought my pistol.
Well, with that argument, you can void any legislation. A criminal will have ways to obtain a gun if he has enough criminal energy. But if they can´t just walk into the next supermarket and buy one legally, it might stop some petty criminals from getting one. And if you happen to be caught owning a illegaly obtained gun, your trouble deepens.
Well see here things get tricky. Laws do not exist to prevent things. They exist to have clear cut legislation on what is socially acceptable and waht isn't socially acceptable, and what the punishment should be in most cases. Laws themselves do not prevent crime.
AR-15's are't easy to acquire, neither are semi-automatic pistols. You can't to my knowledge just walk into a store, purchase one and walkout with one. We have a law here in my state that is you use an illegaly obtained firearm, it adds an amount of time to your sentance. Does this prevent gun crime? Nope.Sad to say, people who are going to go out and kill people, whether they feel justified or are insane or both can not be prevented in doing so with laws alone.
It does not say anything about instituting something like a process that proves that you are indeed able to bear arms, does it?Yes it does. Since bearing arms is a right, any time the government says no to it they're infringing on your rights, which they can't do except in response to a crime.
So any constitutionally granted rights are forever unconditional and can´t be limited in any way unless you are a criminal? (And, I´d guess, unless you using your rights infringes on others constitutional rights.) I see how that makes legislation on any constitutionally granted rights very hard if not downright impossible.
As intended.
Not as hard as you might think.
Sad to say, people who are going to go out and kill people, whether they feel justified or are insane or both can not be prevented in doing so with laws alone.
No, laws don´t prevent any crime. If they did, we probably would not need them in first place. But it could make a difference if you are legally able to buy, say, an assault rifle or not. I don´t see any justification for a civilian to own an assault rifle, as this is something needed in a war only, so why even sell these?
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
Not as hard as you might think.
This can be true as well, unfortunately.
Re: AR-15s: Yeah, that's what I thought, but I ain't no gun nut.
As intended.
Yes, there is a similar passage in the German Grundgesetz, which excludes some items in the Grundgesetz from changes (universal human rights, mostly). But others, like ownership of land, can and do have restrictions put on them by other laws for the "greater good". Most articles of the Grundgesetz can and some get changed.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
Ok, I´m no expert on this. It looks to me like a military-grade weapon. I don´t understand why any civilian would "need" such a gun.
|
Considering that the 2nd Amendment is part of the core Bill of Rights as handed down by the Founding Fathers, it's extremely unlikely that any attempt to remove it would be successful. The Founding Fathers clearly felt that all of these were vitally important to the health of the democratic system they envisioned. In fact, one of them (I'm not sure who, would have to research) stated in a letter somewhere that the only reason the 2nd Amendment isn't the 1st Amendment is because they were worried that other countries would see the USA as "warlike" if it were listed first.
Considering that the 2nd Amendment is part of the core Bill of Rights as handed down by the Founding Fathers, it's extremely unlikely that any attempt to remove it would be successful. The Founding Fathers clearly felt that all of these were vitally important to the health of the democratic system they envisioned. In fact, one of them (I'm not sure who, would have to research) stated in a letter somewhere that the only reason the 2nd Amendment isn't the 1st Amendment is because they were worried that other countries would see the USA as "warlike" if it were listed first.
I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?
I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?
Funny. The Second Amendment is one of the few parts of the Constitution I'd leave alone.
So any constitutionally granted rights are forever unconditional and can´t be limited in any way unless you are a criminal? (And, I´d guess, unless you using your rights infringes on others constitutional rights.) I see how that makes legislation on any constitutionally granted rights very hard if not downright impossible.
Yup.
I really don't LIKE that guns are on that list, but there they are: thats the legal reality in this country. I do like that there is a list of things the government can't easily legislate away, so that it has to break its own laws when it tries to do so.
I don't see any reason that the type of firearm can't be more restricted than it is though. There really isn't a legitimate use for a 100 round magazine.
|
That's the point. They shouldn't (IMO ) trend with what is popular with one political party or another - and thus manipulated as such.
There are a few factors I would like to bring up regarding the "society' issue here in the States. A few points
- People in the US have traditionally/historically had less reliance on gov't to manage their daily lives. This goes a long way towards the attitude of being able to take care of yourself vs. someone else protecting you.
- The US is not as homogenous in culture as most other European countries are. I mean even France, which is pretty liberal and has many ethnicities who reside as citizens within their borders has some very draconic rules about their flag, freedom of speech, etc. And most all citizens there play ball (ethnic background not being a factor). That would never fly in the States.
I don't think the availability of guns plays as much importance as being taught how to properly act/react when slighted. It's not so much a violent culture as it is a revenge culture - I mean look at the way people drive in many of the big cities here in the states. You cut someone off and they may very well go nuts and go after you. Road rage has little to do with guns (although they may come into play if you want to reenact some scenes from the Road Warrior) but have everything to do with the "I don't believe what that guy just did, he cut me off!" attitude. You add guns, bombs or whatever into the mix and you are going to have some problems.
On the AR-15 issue, there are a ton of assault rifle clones out there (as a matter of fact I'm looking at picking up a SU-16) but they do not mechanically function like assault rifles (ROF, magazine size, etc). So when they hold one up at a press conference (assault rifle clone) it looks like an assault rifle - everyone goes "ah ha!" and the media wets itself.
It’s just smoke - the guilty parties involved would be all the gun aficionados and buyers who want to make their guns look like what we used to have (but in many states banned some time ago) but in effect are just semi-auto hunting rifles. That is, a large game of "pretend" for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?
To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
- The US is not as homogenous in culture as most other European countries are. I mean even France, which is pretty liberal and has many ethnicities who reside as citizens within their borders has some very draconic rules about their flag, freedom of speech, etc. And most all citizens there play ball (ethnic background not being a factor). That would never fly in the States.
I don´t quite get your meaning there. Do you want to say that France is very restrictive what happens to their flag? This is probably true for most countries.
On the AR-15 issue, there are a ton of assault rifle clones out there (as a matter of fact I'm looking at picking up a SU-16) but they do not mechanically function like assault rifles (ROF, magazine size, etc). So when they hold one up at a press conference (assault rifle clone) it looks like an assault rifle - everyone goes "ah ha!" and the media wets itself.
It’s just smoke - the guilty parties involved would be all the gun aficionados and buyers who want to make their guns look like what we used to have (but were some time ago banned) but in effect are just semi-auto hunting rifles. That is, a large game of "pretend" for the most part.
Well, but if someone who is not a gun aficionado looks at such a clone, he probably can´t tell if it is a clone or not, right? And I bet you can modify these clones to get a real assault rifle if you know how.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
If The Bill of Rights is so sacrosanct, then why does it get violated, historically speaking, all the time?
I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
Wow. Well, is is "just" legislation, even if it had a huge impact on the western world. To put it in the vicinity of holy texts spells trouble. Every modern nation has its founding myth, but the question is, how much influence has it today?
He was being facetious, but it is serious business here.