Denorth wrote:
by the way. there was an argument about 'illegal guns' that are bed. One well know fact - most of the illegal guns begun life as legal. They didn't materialise out of thin air (unless one is a creationist
). some one bought the gun and then it was either stolen or lost (apart from those brought from military zones, but it would be naive and stupid to suggest that all illegal guns are brought from there).
One thing that friend from police in one of the West European countries told me. When they confiscate illegal guns here in Europe, about half of them are 'legal handguns' from US, brought via black market.
In Mexico - 70% of drug cartel guns are brought from US where they were bought as legal guns in shops. (guess about main direction of drug trafficking)
So maybe it is time for the US state to start working for the money they are getting from US citizens and do something (I am not pro-ban person, more about control and ban on semi-automatic weapon)
That is something I've been wanting to point out too.
Johnston's been arguing that it's "illegal" guns that are the issue, and as they've pointed out, they're in Northern Ireland, and yes, the majority of problems are with "illegal" guns. However, I can't remember who, but I think it was Johnston themselves, also pointed out that the majority of those illegal guns come from the US in the first place. In the US, they don't generally import their guns from elsewhere, not even the "illegal" guns, so the "illegal" guns in NI do start life as legal ones back in the US. Legal guns becoming illegal ones does not just effect the US, the statistics about the provenance of guns being used to kill all over the world, particularly those for Mexico, are extremely telling. "Legal" US guns are being used illegally all over the world, not just in the US.
If you reduce the number of legal guns, you eventually reduce the number of illegal ones, and therefore eventually reduce the number of gun related deaths, and not just in the US.
Another point, just to reinforce those who have already made it.
The anti-gun control (or at least anti far tighter gun control) lobby/people, even here, take issue with us sane people's point that the US has massively, disproportionately high gun death rates compared to any other "Western" country, and that this should be reason enough to introduce further gun control, by pointing out that countries like Guatemala, Mexico, Brazil, Honduras and Colombia have even higher figures, concluding that therefore the US doesn't have a problem.
Ignoring for the moment that a lot that make up those figures for other countries are directly attributable to once legal US guns, but, no disrespect to those countries, what country, let alone a "western" country, let alone supposedly "leader of the western world", let alone supposedly "land of the free", would want to be compared to such countries on virtually any ranking system, let alone one listing gun related deaths?
The US has a problem, no most people don't use guns to kill anyone, or commit gun related crimes (as brought up by ashley313), but guns are purely designed to kill (okay, arguably some are
only designed to maim) and there's no genuine justification for most ownership, and they have, compared to any other "western" country, a disproportionately high rate of gun related deaths.
If reducing general ownership has any chance of reducing the number of gun related deaths in the US, and also those elsewhere (which it certainly would eventually, seeing as most massacres are done with legal guns, and most other gun crime is committed with illegal guns which started life as legal ones), then surely all those "responsible" gun owners have a moral imperative to choose the minor inconvenience of not being able to have their guns, so as some others may live? If they do not feel this to be a moral imperative, especially in the light of 20 6-7 year olds being slaughtered, then they can't really be considered "responsible" in the first place, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to have guns anyway.
Of course there are other things that need to be done, such as improving the mental health system, but allowing gun ownership to continue largely unchecked is idiotic. Unfortunately, is seems like Obama will only be able to bring back into force Clinton's ban of semi and fully automatic rifles and bigger clips.
For people's interest here's the 2nd amendment (yes it is just from Wikipedia):
"As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Two slightly different versions, but it was just intended to enable the people to be able to form militias and overthrow the government. Hardly relevant now, the US military, and yes national guard, are far too powerful for the people to be able to overthrow them by force. And apparently it was only 4 and 2 years ago respectively that the courts ratified its meaning to anything broader. And anyway, it's only an "amendment", re-amend it.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
minus Vettel
