This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:Admiral X, there were plenty of people with guns at the Country Music Festival. That didn't help at all.
Just because it wouldn't in that situation, doesn't mean that it wouldn't ever help. Honestly it would help the vast majority of the time.
Paul Walker wrote:
The use of these places would allow much better regulations on firearms, and would allow the wording "a well regulated militia" to actually mean that the use of these arms were...well...regulated!
Except that militia service was never meant to be a requirement, and if you can't somehow get that from the Amendment itself, you need to read the Federalist Papers, State Constitutions dating from the same period, and even just letters the people involved in forming our country wrote to each other about it. The militia is a justification for allowing citizens to keep and bear arms because the militia is made up of citizens, there is nothing there saying that membership in one is required. The Supreme Court agreed on that, btw, because that idea had already been suggested.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
Paul Walker wrote:
The use of these places would allow much better regulations on firearms, and would allow the wording "a well regulated militia" to actually mean that the use of these arms were...well...regulated!
Except that militia service was never meant to be a requirement, and if you can't somehow get that from the Amendment itself, you need to read the Federalist Papers, State Constitutions dating from the same period, and even just letters the people involved in forming our country wrote to each other about it. The militia is a justification for allowing citizens to keep and bear arms because the militia is made up of citizens, there is nothing there saying that membership in one is required. The Supreme Court agreed on that, btw, because that idea had already been suggested.
I didn't say they had to serve in the militia, but it would absolutely improve the security regarding people who shouldn't have access to weapons (such as people with a history of violent assaults).
Since the UK severely restricted access to guns in 1996, the average number of gun deaths in the UK is 1 in a million, so there are about 60 deaths a year. The USA's rate is around 160 times that.
Given that for 100 people there are 6.5 guns in the UK compared to 101 guns in the USA, there is likely something of a correlation to ease of access.
"We are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters."
And in the argument between security vs. liberty, I lean toward liberty. If I were to make any changes, aside from simply enforcing existing laws (which this country seems to have great trouble doing, as a number of these mass shooters should have been flagged in our national background check system and been unable to legally purchase firearms), would be to include a firearms safety course in schools, rather like sex education and at about the same ages as those are usually taught.
As for comparisons, one of the biggest limiting factors for that is that you're talking about different countries with different cultures - the US is a melting pot, after all. Another thing is the focus on guns themselves. Guns are a tool, so if you want to make comparisons, I suggest comparing overall homicides or overall violent crime.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
United Kingdom 0.92
United States 4.88
Canada 1.68
Australia 0.98
All are rates per 100,000
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Paul Walker wrote:
Since the UK severely restricted access to guns in 1996, the average number of gun deaths in the UK is 1 in a million, so there are about 60 deaths a year. The USA's rate is around 160 times that.
Given that for 100 people there are 6.5 guns in the UK compared to 101 guns in the USA, there is likely something of a correlation to ease of access.
Just to chime in here with a bit of local knowledge. The UK handgun ban happened after the Dunblane massacre where legally owned weapons were used in a School shooting.
However private handgun ownership in the UK was already extremely low and required strict licensing. The handgun ban itself had no noticeable impact on gun crime as a result.
Historically though gun crime in the UK has always been low. Most guns in the UK belonging to farmers or pheasant shoots.
Getting a CCW permit requires additional training, and often civilians are better marksmen than the police, such as can be seen pretty much any time the police in NYC and LA in particular shoot someone (or just try to). You also aren't going to get around the inherent right to self defense, and gun ownership is part of that.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
Really, X? You're going to ignore all of those cited sources and throw out an unsupported "pretty much any time"? I thought you were more rigorous than that.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
One of those "sources" is an op-ed piece, another conveniently ignores that it's literally impossible to know how many crimes are prevented because a civilian was armed, and the other two consist of police complaining, all being used as an excuse to restrict peoples' ability to defend themselves. I could cite sources where the NYPD in particular went nuts and wounded more people than the shooter did (an instance at the Empire State Building comes to mind), but it doesn't seem like it'd be worth the effort to look that information up and post it here, only for it to be dismissed out of hand anyway. I mean, I'm arguing against an ideology that insists that only the police and military should be armed, while also insisting that the police and military are evil. Not to mention talking down to people who cite the Second Amendment as a check against a tyrannical government by insisting that could never happen, then turning around and calling the President "literally Hitler."
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
