It is not so easy in the US to buy firearms. There are many forms, mandatory background checks, and waiting periods.
The right to bear arms is interpreted differently in Europe. Every able-bodied Swiss male from 20-30, for example, has a Sturmgewehr in his closet and is part of the state militia. Shooting clubs are still a strong tradition in Sweden and Finland as well. Many countries such as Germany and Poland still have hunting associations, though it is often very difficult to get a gun. The liberals took away all guns in the UK.
There are two problems that gun ownership addresses. One is that law enforcement is a reactive process only after a crime has happened. Two is that the government itself may commit crimes against its citizens. Consider Hitler and Stalin who murdered millions of their own people, in Hitler's case, after he disarmed them. Or more recently the Serbian government sending out Skorpions to conduct ethnic cleansing.
In Warsaw ghetto, there were once nearly 400 000 Jews, which was reduced to 70 000 by the time of the 1943 Ghetto Uprising. They finally decided to get some weapons and fight, knowing what Hitler had in mind for them. With only 1500 fighters they held off a superior German force of thousands for four weeks. What if they had acted sooner?
For gun ownership it is essential to assume that private citizens who want firearms will be responsible and not make stupid decisions such as the scenarios painted above. Mandatory training and regulations can help guarantee this. Gun ownership is an important right, and one which citizens should demand from the state for the two reasons mentioned. Europe especially.
But look at how useful cars are. U keep raising the issue of self defence. The likely result is that u have to kill sb b4 they kill u, agreed? Sometimes there are those situations.
Crudely put, guns are more of a direct threat to life than the others. Getting hurt is different from getting killed.
People drown, they have a choice as to whether or not to enter the water. People often have little choice as to whether sb shoots at them.
But they still kill a horrendous number of people....is it ok that people are killed as long as some find use in the things that are being used to kill them?
If yes...that describes guns...if no...that means you agree cars should be banned too...
I bet you could get on fine without cars as well...and they kill FAR more people than guns.
Exactly...a point i made earlier....After that looney killed some children in the UK with a gun some groups of parents were successfull in getting hand guns banned in UK....But these parents who i presume all drive cars made no mention of the fact that cars kill huge numbers of children compared to the small number killed by guns...but of course banning cars would affect their own lives , rather than those who follow a sport that the parents have little interest in...
Agreed....people are reactionary hypocrites and as long as they have a problem with something or find no use for it they think nobody else should need or have it either.
Take away their wheeled death machines and there would be no end of crying and whining.
So does choking on bacon. Can u imagine the laughs you'd hear across the world if bacon was banned? Tobacco kills more people than cars. It's still legal.
It has a lot to do with legality. The car was designed to get people from A to B. Cars are entertainment for people.
In a criminal law sense, most people don't use cars to kill, they don't have the mens rea to kill. People with guns often do. What else do they have them for? Self defence? What, u gonna hit ur attacker with the gun? OR FIRE IT?
Cars weren't designed to kill, guns were. Simple!!
Guns also have practical uses especially for rural people. Not to kill people, but to protect livestock from predators and hunt for food, for example. And frankly for sporting purposes. In addition to collecting, shooting organizations are an excellent hobby. Not to mention an Olympic sport. Ironic that British Olympic athletes must fly to Canada to practice because they can not shoot legally in the UK!
What if English King were to have tried to take away swords from William Wallace because they were designed to kill people? There would have been no War of Scottish Independence.
Regarding cars, there have recently been several episodes of Palestinian terrorists using cars to run over Israelis in streets. Maybe we can look forward to day when all cars are automatically controlled by goverment computers to keep them safe. :)
The more risk associated with any of the things mentioned usually results in a different level of availability. In the same way that you have to pass a driving test to be allowed to use a car, there should be controls on guns. Perhaps there should be a bacon licence.
Maybe we can look forward to day when all cars are automatically controlled by goverment computers to keep them safe. :)
As long as they are not run by the Polish government. You would never get anywhere as you would be spending all your time getting your stamps and documents and being "failed" on your exam to get the license you would be required to have to 'sit' in the car legally.
there should be controls on guns.
And there are. To carry a gun for self defense you must attend classes and get certified. The majority of people who do this attend a lot of training over time as they enjoy shooting and want to be prepared.
This is not being disputed...and you sir are redirecting and you KNOW it. Don't be coy.
You are saying that is why they should be banned and cars not...yet cars kill many more people...the whole POINT of the conversation starting....you felt having guns is bad because it KILLS too many people.
In addition...knives have many more purposes than killing and may or may not have been developed to kill (maybe first as a tool..who knows?) yet they are banned in the UK. The arguments you have don't stay on focus.
In addition...knives have many more purposes than killing and may or may not have been developed to kill (maybe first as a tool..who knows?) yet they are banned in the UK. The arguments you have don't stay on focus.
Are you sure there are no restrictions as to the possession of knives?
As long as you have a legitmate purpose for having it in Public , its not a problem....having one at home is perfectly legal...i think they are trying to ban Samuri swords...cos some nuts killed with them...
If you are a carpet fitter , fisherman or whatever i think you can argue you need it...i guess it depends on what kind of knife it is...A ten inch combat knife might be seen as over the top for cleaning your pipe out....
Butterfly knives are illegal. Swords are also clamped down on.
In Scotland, u'd have a problem gtd. The police can escort u 2 where u intend to use the knife, e.g workplace. U can't just carry one around willy-nilly.
The police can escort u 2 where u intend to use the knife, e.g workplace.
And that is plain overkill. I carry a knife (tool) for the instances when I am not planning ahead to need it. It comes in useful all the time and many other people ask to use it as well.
This is the nanny state overkill I am talking about...where does it end?
Accidents, thank u. Do u know what that means? It means that u didn't mean to do it, u had no mens rea. Oh, I dare say accidents happen with guns too but users usually know what they are doing and intend to carry out the deed of firing. That doesn't appear so accidental to me.
It was a governmental response to a predicament that was spiralling out of control gtd. Like I don't profess to know about the prevailing conditions in America, u can't presume the lion's share of knowledge about Scotland (not that u did).
I think it was a 1993 statute in Scotland. The Carrying of Knives (Scotland) Act 1993 I believe. There has probably been subsequent legislation but that broadly encapsulated the Scottish approach. Glasgow was the primary focus. People were being stabbed left, right and centre. Sth had to be done. It was a measured response.
I think it is pretty clear that there are several good reasons to support the ownership of guns, as a tool that is designed to kill, by private citizens. This includes practical purposes such as hunting and working as well as sporting and defense. Furthermore in Poland there is legal framework to ensure that proper training is required to obtain a weapon permit (pozwolenie na bron), and the number of people who have it is relatively small, and well educated.
Important thing is that it remains a personal choice. For people who do not agree on this principal, it is not necessary to take part or buy a gun. If good law abiding citizens with guns are not harming you, there is no reason to try to proselytize against them.
Accidents, thank u. Do u know what that means? It means that u didn't mean to do it, u had no mens rea. Oh, I dare say accidents happen with guns too but users usually know what they are doing and intend to carry out the deed of firing. That doesn't appear so accidental to me.
Whoa whoa whoa...way to pick ONE label out of the list (how conveniently the only one that fit your view) and turn it.
As you might have guessed , i am in favour of gun ownership by responsible people , but i can,t help but notice that the hunters in Poland despite all their training seem to be a bit prone to shooting anything that moves , only recently in Poland a hunter shot his son by accident....
A few years ago i earned some dosh by taking parties of Danish hunters in my 4 x 4 to hunt wild boar , during this hunting some Polish guy who had been drinking shot and killed one of the beaters....I might add that i personally do not hunt , i see no sport in killing an animal just to put its head on your wall , i prefer to shoot them with a camera....
Nonsense? What nonsense? U have completely ducked the most critical of differences. It's not a 'label', it's a reality. U clearly haven't studied criminal law.
Dawid, I don't deny that hunters have a right to do this. However, I think it's pretty clear that a huge number of gun-related deaths (of people) in America cannot be attributed to hunters. Am I wrong? I don't need to be Johnnie Cochrane or Barry Scheck to defend that one.
