Guns and cars should have similar laws. Guns / Cars should be register. Operators should licenced... maybe even "collision" insurance for both... also no more concealing and carry laws for your prius or mini cooper.
Not true. I'll bet you still have knives? Baseball bats? Crowbars?
Guns are not the only possible weapon from which one might need to defend oneself. I've never been to Australia, but I'd be willing to bet my left nut you still have rapes, murders, and other violent crimes.
This is not an issue of "tools", however. You cannot compare such different countries, because you have such different cultures and history. Not long ago where I live a man murdered his wife with a common hammer.
Furthermore, we are not only talking about self-defense; we are talking about hunting, sport, collecting historical memorabilia. We are talking about the citizens having the means to remain a free people.
It has become a bumper sticker slogan but it is very true nonetheless: A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without is a subject.
It's not like guns are all out illegal, you can still have one with a proper license. But. If you check the stats, Australia has a MUCH lower crime rate than America does, so we must be doing something right.
Relative to the US, yes I'm sure of that mate. Even at your peak of firearms homicides in the mid nineties (354 in 1996), murders in all of Australia barely touch the monthly talley in Chicago. We just have a much higher crime rate here, and relatively few of those violent crimes actually involve firearms. What doesn't get reported, however, are the many times when a law-abiding citizen was able to prevent or stop a violent crime with his legally owned firearm - as many as 2.5 million times a year.
Check out "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens" by Clayton E Cramer and David Burnett, or "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott.
As far as comparing American gun laws to other countries, check out "The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?" by David Kopel.
These works are based upon actual research and statistics, not opinion.
2Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
Part of me agrees, but part of me knows that this would also be dangerous.
Imagine if we had to pass a literacy test to exercise our freedom of speech? Or a government test to vote (which I agree would also make a lot of sense, however whether it makes sense or not isn't the point of this). Would there not be protests? Would there not be anger? I want you to try and understand where I'm coming from here.
The Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights here) wasn't designed to 'give' people rights, it was designed to list rights that the people already had that could not be taken away by the government. The Constitution itself was also designed to limit the power of government.
I do agree that it makes sense, but that also scares me because it means that part of me is ready and willing to allow some people to no longer be able to use one of their rights so long as it doesn't affect me.
Because people abuse their rights. Having rights is good. It's great. It's necessary to have a free society. But you will always find someone who abuses them.
2
deleted
· 8 years ago
I'm not saying they don't. There will always be someone who will find a way to abuse something. But does a small minority abusing a right give the government the ability to restrict that right for everyone? I can't say so and still believe we live in a place where men a free.
Varies state to state really. Unless it has changed in the last few years, there are a 3 states (plus D.C) that required safety training to get a license to purchase. Many more require training for concealed carry permits at the very least, but there are also several states where you can conceal carry without a permit at all.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and DC require an approved safety course to apply for a license to buy. California requires an exam and then also passing a safe handling demonstration when taking possession of a gun. Several others require safety exams for licenses to purchase.
No. We have a little something called the second amendment in our Constitution.
We have a right to own firearms. You have no right to demand any qualifications for me to exercise my right.
Almost all states require safety training to get a carry permit, but just to purchase them, no and hell no.
Children cause much more trouble than guns, how about we require training and a license before you can have a kid?
A law isn't a justification because it isn't a dogma. The 2nd amendment is from 1791 and tomes have changed since. I think a license system for highly dangerous objects like firearms makes perfect sense.
Not to mention in the 1700s it was meant to be for the militia which was the main military force. Context is also essential. I'm from the south and while I'm all for people having guns, there has to be some kind of control over. I mean, if i'd had access to my dads gun safe right after I was raped, I'd have killed myself. But I can just go buy one? Nah. There should be restrictions.
No, that is incorrect. The Founding Fathers were against having a standing army, and intended that one would be raised from the general public in times of need. If Joe Blow farmer is not allowed to own a gun, how can he be called upon to fight for his country in its darkest hour? The "militia" WAS THE PEOPLE.
The second amendment is written in pretty plain English: "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Restrictions are infringement.
Where in hell is the confusion?
As to your, and others' contention that we need more fucking gun laws; the number of federal, state, and local gun laws currently infringing our rights has been pegged at 20,000. I guess 20,001 will make all the difference, huh?
Ok, ok, this number has actually been called into question many times, and it's source is dubious. Fine. The Brookings Institution released a study on our gun laws a few years ago. Cont.
Cont. The study found 300 "relevant" state and federal laws. They did not define what they considered "relevant", and they also completely ignored local ordinances.
Fine, let's just go with that number of 300 laws. That's still a lot of fucking regulations for a right that shall not be infringed.
I guess maybe number 318 might magically fix all the supposed problems you want more legislation for? Maybe law number 362?
@chu, yes these fascists that want to disarm the law-abiding citizenry of this country do indeed want our Constitution changed. They do not like to be told what they cannot do.
You literally made my point when you said "The "militia" WAS THE PEOPLE. " The PEOPLE are no longer the militia and the militia no longer exist. Hence, the context of the original meaning of the text is null. Now it needs to be void. Get with the times.
But you're correct about the existing gun control. There are many. The problem being they aren't enforced. Like, at all. SOOOO that's why the Executive Order Obama signed was to create jobs specifically to enforce them. If we can get them actually working we can see where we actually need help.
Umm... Not quite. A little bit of actual studying of history would inform you of the fact that the Founding Fathers were afraid of England trying to take us back (which happened in 1812, by the way) and of future politicians trying to rule America as a monarchy. They had just fought a long and bloody war to get away from a government that didn't want them to have guns, and they wanted to make sure it never happened again. Everyone of the day understood the need for the citizens to be able to defend themselves and the new nation both. The militia line was put in as a simple and powerful justification. Unfortunately they underestimated the tenacity of those who would try to take control of the nation in the future, and they overestimated the reasoning capabilities of future generations.
If you think you can muster enough Americans to vote for a new amendment, go for it. That would be democracy, and I would grudgingly accept it.
Otherwise, you'll get my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Probably warm, dead hands if we're honest. With the right person shooting warm, alive hands! But I'm glad you see that you're lacking reasoning capabilities. Admitting is the first step. :)
.
.
do we not?
Guns are not the only possible weapon from which one might need to defend oneself. I've never been to Australia, but I'd be willing to bet my left nut you still have rapes, murders, and other violent crimes.
This is not an issue of "tools", however. You cannot compare such different countries, because you have such different cultures and history. Not long ago where I live a man murdered his wife with a common hammer.
Furthermore, we are not only talking about self-defense; we are talking about hunting, sport, collecting historical memorabilia. We are talking about the citizens having the means to remain a free people.
It has become a bumper sticker slogan but it is very true nonetheless: A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without is a subject.
Check out "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens" by Clayton E Cramer and David Burnett, or "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott.
As far as comparing American gun laws to other countries, check out "The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?" by David Kopel.
These works are based upon actual research and statistics, not opinion.
Imagine if we had to pass a literacy test to exercise our freedom of speech? Or a government test to vote (which I agree would also make a lot of sense, however whether it makes sense or not isn't the point of this). Would there not be protests? Would there not be anger? I want you to try and understand where I'm coming from here.
The Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights here) wasn't designed to 'give' people rights, it was designed to list rights that the people already had that could not be taken away by the government. The Constitution itself was also designed to limit the power of government.
I do agree that it makes sense, but that also scares me because it means that part of me is ready and willing to allow some people to no longer be able to use one of their rights so long as it doesn't affect me.
We have a right to own firearms. You have no right to demand any qualifications for me to exercise my right.
Almost all states require safety training to get a carry permit, but just to purchase them, no and hell no.
Children cause much more trouble than guns, how about we require training and a license before you can have a kid?
The second amendment is written in pretty plain English: "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Restrictions are infringement.
Where in hell is the confusion?
As to your, and others' contention that we need more fucking gun laws; the number of federal, state, and local gun laws currently infringing our rights has been pegged at 20,000. I guess 20,001 will make all the difference, huh?
Ok, ok, this number has actually been called into question many times, and it's source is dubious. Fine. The Brookings Institution released a study on our gun laws a few years ago. Cont.
Fine, let's just go with that number of 300 laws. That's still a lot of fucking regulations for a right that shall not be infringed.
I guess maybe number 318 might magically fix all the supposed problems you want more legislation for? Maybe law number 362?
But you're correct about the existing gun control. There are many. The problem being they aren't enforced. Like, at all. SOOOO that's why the Executive Order Obama signed was to create jobs specifically to enforce them. If we can get them actually working we can see where we actually need help.
Otherwise, you'll get my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.