Donate SIGN UP

Guns

Avatar Image
brionon | 10:22 Tue 11th Jan 2011 | Phrases & Sayings
23 Answers
So this shooter in America is kicked out of Uni because he's mentally unstable and then is able to buy a gun over the counter, mad or wot ?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
GOD BLESS AMERICA !
I always recall Mick jagger's bemusement after visiting the US on the Stones' first tour. He was nineteen, and could not understand why he was asked to produce proof of age to buy a drink in a bar, but not to buy a gun in the gun shop down the street.

America needs to lose its 'frontier' mentality and lose the right to bear arms.
Those bear arms are very warm in the summer!

http://2.bp.blogspot....ight_To_Bear_Arms.jpg

And on a serious note, the American public would never give up their right to bear arms, the entire concept is far too deeply ingrained into them now and they mostly seem to think it genuinely makes it safer if every one has a gun.
Indeed Chuck.

In a similar scenario to that which prevents any British politician contemplating election to even suggest a ban on alcohol, the carrying and use of guns is so engrained in the American psyche that it is difficult to see a time when they will be outlawed.

As Ben Elton says, it's very simple -

You ask someone if they would like to own a gun. If they say 'Yes.' they are immediately prevented from ever having access to one!
Look... one has to consider the differing cultures between "old" Europe (into which I classify the U.K.) and that of a still "young" U.S. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to own firearms. In fact, the Battle of Concorde (you know, "The shot heard round the world") was started because the British general (can't remember his name right now) was attempting to disarm the populace.
But there are some interesting statistics (I'm soon to be accused of "cherrypicking, I'm sure) that indicate gun control may not be all that effective. For example, one of the world's lowest crime rate countries is Switzerland where every male citizen is "required" to keep and maintain a machine gun.
But out of all the stats that one could quote, Australia's is a real study in unintended conseqences.
"Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, (law-abiding) gun owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell. Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Assaults are up 8.6 percent; Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun
Contd.

crime in Australia had been dropping steadily, now there has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly." (Source: NRA Freedom Watch... I know, but the stats are still valid).

I have a conceal-carry permit issued bythe FBI after a thorough back-ground check. I grants me the right to carry a concealed weapon. Why? you ask... it takes, on aerage, 15 mintues for the police, anywhere, to respond to a call for help... I intend to protect my family for that intervening 15 minutes... simply put. I haven't yet had to draw the weapon and don't intend to except under dire circumstances, but I personally know people that have stopped home invasion type crimes an other violent confrontations... especially here in the rural western U.S.
I think is a more self-reliant type of mentality than may be prevalent in other societies.

Is it not true that England's own murder and assault crime rates haven't receded but actually increased? Most of the crimes I read about there aren't committed by legal gun owners...few as they may be... I'm just saying...
The best use of statistics to show that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

In 2009 there were 59 gun murders in Australia, in the US over 9,000.

Remember if there are two gun murders in London in 2008 and 3 in 2009 thats a 50% rise in gun crime in London.
Indeed Davethedog.

I think a large part of the issue here is national psyche - and the way respective media play on fear.

The American psyche is still routed in the notion of a 'frontier' mentality, and every man being able to defend his home and family by force if necessary.

But that is a far cry from the current gangsta culture where guns equiate to machismo, and a horrible attitude of 'respect' and gang loyalty conspire to breed a generation of people for whom guns are simply a way of life.

As with every national malaise everywhere in the word - the root of the solution lies with education - and as with every nation, education remains the poor relation in terms of approach, respect, and most of all, finance.
But... but... Dave... what's the population of Australia vs the U.S. Additionally, I read on this site alone about the increase in murders and assaults in England (let alone the U.K.) that have nothing to do with guns...

As usual, the rush to judgement on implementing Australia's gun law was a single event... what was the gun murder rate prior to the law's effect? Even more importantly, f there were 59 gun murders in 2009, as you state, were any of them committed with a "legal" gun. If not, what you're saying is that only criminals with illegal guns are committing such crimes, meaning that law abiding gun owners, such as myself, don't commit such crimes.
Look, just last year, a Doctor here in the U.S. had his house broken into by two thugs who beat him nearly to death, raped both of his daughters and wife, tied them in their beds and set fie to the hose. The autopsies showed all of the women died of burning to death. The Doctor survived but is disabled. Both criminals were caught and sentenced to death... not a lot of comfort to the Doctor who couldn't defend his family.
Interviews by sociologists with lower grade criminals such as thieves, purse snatchers, people who beat up old people and others of such ilk all expressed one major concern... they were afraid one of their victims or a nearby passerby might be armed... to bad more aren't.
In the case of the shootings in Arizona on Saturday last... if only one of the victims or other person in the crowd had been armed the outcome would have been considerably different.
Andy is probably right... many here in the U.S. would prefer to be able to defend themselves rather than delegating that responsibility to the 15 minute brigade...
Do I remember correctly? Are 10000 people killed every year in the USA with weapons that they, or a family member, own?
America population approx 300 million
Australia population approx 20 million

So about 15 times the population in America.

America Gun murders (2009) 9000
Australia gun murders (2009) 59

So about 152 times the gun murders in America...

The larger population argument isn't cutting much ice at the moment.
But, of coure, that's not the whole picture following the gun ban of 1997... such as here:

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

At any rate... if it works for you, great! But, as for me and my family, I'll be responsible, thank you...
I'm sure I read somewhere about a child doing a presentation in a school about the 'right to arm bears', which, I'm sure, would be great fun.
Switzerland also has liberal gun laws - for much the same reason as the USA, they want a militia if they're attacked (though they have come an awful lot closer to being attacked over the last century than the USA has). Their statistics recently: 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms; 7.6 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.o...Switzerland#Gun_crime

This does suggest it's the people, not the laws, that are the problem. I don't know if this can exactly be any comfort to Clanad, of course.
Clanad -

Are there not just as many guns in Canada relative to the population? Canada has just as much a gun and hunting culture as the US and I believe one in five households in has a gun. However, there were only 172 gun related deaths in 2009.

It's not the number of guns that matter at all - it's the propensity of people to point them at each other which is important!
Is it still the case that the UK police are the only ones in the world not to be routinely armed when out on patrol? (Not that they do much of that, these days)
Certainly is Mike. I've never seen a gun in the UK except at the airport. I've certainly never touched one.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, there are plenty of tools of death in every supermarket & DIY store. Guns are merely an efficient tool.

If you outlaw guns the only people with guns will be outlaws.
You'd have a good point, Andy, if only you'd consider the statistics in context with all other things going on, criminasl wise, in a society. such as:
"Since the new gun registration program started in 1998, the U.S. homicide rate has fallen, but the Canadian rate has increased. The net cost of Canada’s gun registry has surged beyond $1-billion — more than 500 times the amount originally estimated. Despite this, the Canadian government recently admitted it could not identify a single violent crime that had been solved through registration.
The laws in Australia, Britain and Canada were adopted under what gun control advocates would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem that Canada claims with regard to the United States. The new attempts to ban toys or cast blame on the United States, reek of desperation." (Source: http://www.freealberta.com/firearms.html )
" Australia and England, which have essentially banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault and assault among the top 17 industrialized countries.
Since banning guns, the UK has seen a dramatic rise in violent crime.
Since banning guns, Australia has seen greater than 100% increases in armed robbery, kidnapings, assaults, attempted murder and sexual assaults.
I own several guns here in Mid America, but they are shotguns and one .22 caliber rifle. I have to dig up ammo for any but the .22.
But the argument that individuals need the "right" to own assault style guns, to me has no roots in a sane discussion.But it is used usually with the phrase, "it's just the camel's nose in the tent" statement. In this discussion I see only either or statements, No Guns or Guns with nothing distinguishing

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Guns

Answer Question >>