Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Does this happen in the UK?
27 Answers
It seems some Americans react to domestic shooting atrocities by buying more guns, just in case some bleeding heart liberal's going to try to curtail their right to bear arms.
http://
I know the issue has some wider significance in the US, but does the same trend happen here?
http://
I know the issue has some wider significance in the US, but does the same trend happen here?
Answers
Gromit,
total ban in 1986 ?
From Wikipedia (OK, I know, I know):
Incidents in 1987 and 1996 in which men holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use. The result has been the enacting of laws which are among the strictest in the world.[8] The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, passed by the Thatcher government in the wake of the Hungerford massacre, made most semi-automatic weapons illegal; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate.[9] After the Dunblane school massacre, the Major government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 which made private possession of semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 calibre illegal. The Snowdrop Campaign pressed for a wider ban, and led the incoming Labour government in 1997 to introduce the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which extended the ban to semi-automatic handguns with a calibre over .22.
total ban in 1986 ?
From Wikipedia (OK, I know, I know):
Incidents in 1987 and 1996 in which men holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use. The result has been the enacting of laws which are among the strictest in the world.[8] The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, passed by the Thatcher government in the wake of the Hungerford massacre, made most semi-automatic weapons illegal; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate.[9] After the Dunblane school massacre, the Major government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 which made private possession of semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 calibre illegal. The Snowdrop Campaign pressed for a wider ban, and led the incoming Labour government in 1997 to introduce the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which extended the ban to semi-automatic handguns with a calibre over .22.
brionon - not relavent at all.
The primary purpose of the car is a conveyance, and its use as a weapon is small, compared to the statistics for its lawful use.
The primary purpose of the gun is to shoot something or someone, and its use as a murder weapon makes its ban a feasible and desireable concept.
In order to murder someone with a gun, you need to first buy or obtgain a gun, carry it, point it at someone and pull the trigger.
That does not in any way equate with accidentally hitting a person or vehicle without intent or pre-planning.
The primary purpose of the car is a conveyance, and its use as a weapon is small, compared to the statistics for its lawful use.
The primary purpose of the gun is to shoot something or someone, and its use as a murder weapon makes its ban a feasible and desireable concept.
In order to murder someone with a gun, you need to first buy or obtgain a gun, carry it, point it at someone and pull the trigger.
That does not in any way equate with accidentally hitting a person or vehicle without intent or pre-planning.
andy, laws are one thing (they are often revoked, as you say), but the US consitution is quite different - only changed with very great difficulty (as you would expect with a "basic law" on which all other law depends), and very deeply respected.
Apart from a tweak to do with congressional salaries, the last amendment was in 1971, to change the voting age. Most amendments are similarly to do with the electoral process itself. Changing gun laws would be highly unlikely to get the same degree of support in the legislature
http://
Apart from a tweak to do with congressional salaries, the last amendment was in 1971, to change the voting age. Most amendments are similarly to do with the electoral process itself. Changing gun laws would be highly unlikely to get the same degree of support in the legislature
http://
jno - i completely understand the reverence with which The Constitution is viewed in the U.S., but I still think that the Founding Fathers would be aghast to find that their well-intentioned law was being misappropriated in this way.
This is about changing the mindsets of those involved - which centres around the colossal arrogance that they are perfectly safe and sensible carrying and storing lethal weapons. and the actions of those who fail lto reach their lofty standards are insufficient for them to deprived of their penis extentions.
Times move on - death is constant - which is going to adapt to which?
This is about changing the mindsets of those involved - which centres around the colossal arrogance that they are perfectly safe and sensible carrying and storing lethal weapons. and the actions of those who fail lto reach their lofty standards are insufficient for them to deprived of their penis extentions.
Times move on - death is constant - which is going to adapt to which?
sp //humbersloop - do you really divide the world up ike that?
What's the opposite of a 'bleeding heart liberal'//
No I don't: my tongue can't have been firmly enough in my cheek in the OP.
I should have said people who make the fairly reasonable assumption -IMO- that widespread, relatively lightly regulated access to and ownership of lethal weapons may make slaughter a bit more probable.
On the topic, and following Andy's point ^,there does seem to be some debate in the US about whether it's an individual right or the right of your state to have a militia and personal entitlement is derived from that.
http://
What's the opposite of a 'bleeding heart liberal'//
No I don't: my tongue can't have been firmly enough in my cheek in the OP.
I should have said people who make the fairly reasonable assumption -IMO- that widespread, relatively lightly regulated access to and ownership of lethal weapons may make slaughter a bit more probable.
On the topic, and following Andy's point ^,there does seem to be some debate in the US about whether it's an individual right or the right of your state to have a militia and personal entitlement is derived from that.
http://
Latest Posts
ChatterBank43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles82 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics82 mins ago
ChatterBank87 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles88 mins ago
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |