Here in the UK it's easy to acquire illegal guns too. In fact: where I am currently living in Sunderland I know at least two places where, if I make the right moves, I can buy one without fuss. Not that I'd ever go to these places though, they are in very dodgy areas.
Timothy McVeigh, worked at a lakeside campground near McVeigh's old Army post, he and Nichols constructed an ANNM explosive device mounted in the back of a rented Ryder truck. This site was regarded as suitable because a moving truck would not seem out of place, given the transient population of the area. The bomb consisted of about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, a motor-racing fuel. Using some of the anti gun logic, we should also outlaw Ryder trucks, fertilizer and racing fuel because one nut used them for an evil purpose.
This is my main problem with people who think guns should be banned, especially here in the UK. Banning an entire activity because of a small minority within it is just irrational.
I don't even own a gun, or have a desire to own a gun, and I still agree. I am one of those guys that rents guns at shooting ranges and uses a friends gun to hunt. I live in a nice area now so I have no reason to spend money on a gun. For protection or otherwise. But I know the rest of my countryman are in different situations around all the States. Which is why I am against blanket banning firearms.
A gun is a tool. In the right hands it can and has fed many families or saved the lives of the innocent. It can also repel tyrants who would forcefully take over our lands and subjugate us into slavery or death. It can stop an invader intent on entering our homes and taking our things and our very lives. Guns freed America from unfair taxation and rule so the founding fathers saw fit to write into our constitution that all men shall have the right to bear arms. People killed each other for thousands of years before guns were ever made and will continue to do so. If there were no guns, we would use swords, that is our nature, to defend or at times to attack.
an american speaking of tyrants invading their lands?? hohoho!!! speaking of the whole gun issue, i think they are important for defending a family, yet there should be some sort of strict rule for them, esp like carrying them around!! a gun should stay at the home and that is IT. but yeah i wouldnt mind getting a gun license myself soon
an american speaking of tyrants invading their lands?? hohoho!!! Yes, Germany and Japan comes to mind. Being 17 years old I don't expect you to remember, let alone honor the thousands of Americans who died defending other people's lands .
Would you say it's okay to shoot in public if you don't plan to hit anyone? I wouldn't swing my fists anywhere near your nose, cause you might shoot me in self-defense
While you are probably right about Japan, Nazi Germany wasn't really very interested in the US. Hitler actually tried a number of times to make peace with the western allies. His main focus was fighting Communism and the Soviet Union. A battle he was never going to win anyway. I agree with your point. But as someone greatly interested in History I had to point this out.
How do we differentiate guns from more powerful weapons? If I say I need automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines for self defense, can't I also make the claim that I need artillery and mustard gas for self defense? Where is the line drawn? Do I get to have personal nuclear weapons just in case North Korea invades my home? I understand and approve of hunting rifles and target pistols. They have their purposes. But at some point I have to draw a line - I don't TRUST ordinary citizens with major-league firepower. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007 with a .22 caliber Walther P22 and a 9mm Glock 19 - what if he'd had more firepower? What if he'd had grenades? A grenade in a crowded classroom would have killed many. My point is, where do you draw the line on what weapons people should be allowed to have? Is there a limit?
^What is the difference between a pistol and a nuke. One just puts holes in things at very high speeds, the other is a terrifying weapon of mass destruction. Pushing things to logical extremes is fine in most cases, but not when the extreme is a nuclear bomb. As for your point: a single shot hunting rifle is fine when used in sport; but pelting someone with AK-47 rounds is not reasonable or lawful use of force in most situations. And that's what it comes down to for me: reasonable use of force.
In his previous post he was also talking about America defending other peoples land(s). So he wasn't necessarily lumping Germany in with Japan. He made two separate points.
^That was just a repost of something I said before the bold words were written; I didn't see the text in bold until just now.
I go of the innocent until proven guilty method, you know the legal standard in the civilized world. I say that someone should be able to engage in owning a firearm and firearm sports until they are proven to be unfit to. How would you judge which citizens you can trust? I can tell you from personal experience it is easier where I live to get guns illegally.
Let's use a real life analogy here: when I was diagnosed with epilepsy, the doctor told me I couldn't drive a car for at least a year. Did I think or do you think he was limiting my right as a free man to drive a car? Yes I do, I became a medic in 93 and have worked many accident where a diabetic's blood sugar plummeted and they caused an accident. I've never worked a call, or heard of one caused by seizures. It probably has happened but after a year your medication should be proven to work and wrecks like this are so scarce I've never even heard of one. Diabetics, far many more of them roam the streets freely with swinging blood sugar and their "freedom" to drive is not infringed. My point about Germany and Japan is that because we have guns, people can defend themselves from tyrants. Guns are simply tools, they can be used for good or evil, just like a hammer.
And theres no need to blame Germany and Japan for the past, as long as they apologize as a country and make up for it in the present. If men were angels we wouldn't have any of these problems leading to violent acts. Guns were created to kill each other quicker, but it will not do any wrong by itself, like it was said above, it's how you use the weapon that matters. I firmly believe Gun rights should only be mildly adjusted in America, such as making it harder to buy weapons. It's a frustrating process, but safety comes first.
This is quickly spiraling into off-topic territory, but just this once. If I remember correctly 1 in 400 fatal car accidents in Finland is caused by epileptic seizures. On internet forums some people have shared their experiences of crashing their cars while having seizures. Of course you're right, diabetics are a lot more dangerous. 25% of fatal accidents are driven drunk, but for some reason they get shorter driving bans. But apparently you agreed driving should be forbidden for some people? Here you have to have a health certificate to get a license. Guns are more dangerous than cars so ideally you'd need a mental health certificate to get a gun license. This is of course an utopian vision and I have no idea how they would be actually tell the insane from the sane. Minstrel had a good point: where do you draw the lines? Is it okay to own a semi-automatic rifle for self-defense? A machine gun? Rocket launcher? Heavy artillery? Nuclear weapons? All of those things can be acquired illegally. It's not enough to say the line is drawn at reasonable use of force. What is beyond reasonable? Gun laws would be really problematic if they were so vague.
Semi automatic weapons are legal here. To own a fully automatic weapon a person must have a class III collectors permit for each weapon and they are very controlled. Background checks of course are very strict on class III. The best home defense weapon in my opinion is a shotgun, the knockdown power is awesome but penetration of walls is limited so you won't kill a person in the house next door. I think this is reasonable to own such weapons but I see no point in owning anything larger or any weapons of mass destruction. It does irk me when the government starts taking our freedoms away but I do understand the limiting of some weapons.
I used to live in Melbourne (in the Uk at the moment), and just the thought that homicides went up 300% is unimaginable! But you might find that previously there were 4 murders in 12 months, now there were 12, that's really not that bad even though it gives a figure of 300%. I suppose I never thought much about it, but my impression was that very few people (compared with America) owned guns there anyway. Besides, last few years have been utterly devastating from the socioeconomic point, so increase in crime is perfectly attributable to that, the guns removal might just be a coincidence (or, perhaps, if guns weren't removed, the figures would be even worse?) I just know that the mere thought of going down the street in New York fills me with dread when I think just how many people could be carrying a gun. For me, that is really scary and I would not want to see a gun policy such as in America, anywhere I live.
