|
Post by ammaar on Aug 4, 2012 15:38:24 GMT
As you all will know, there was a horrible incident in Colorado where a 24-year old James Holmes went to the premiere of The Dark Knight rises with a pistol and started shooting. His motives for doing so are still ambiguous and seemingly very random. He is being charged of 24 accounts of murder and 116 accounts of attempted murder. If he is found guilty, which seems likely, then there is a high chance of him being sentenced to the death penalty.
But what I want to know is why the American legislation allow normal, average Joe's to purchase such weaponry. I am of the belief that military-grade weapons like guns should be kept to the military, guards/security and police. People who would only use it if necessary, instead of people who use it for personal gain.
If you live in the United States, you are more likely to be murdered:
. Four times more than if you live in Britain . Six times more likely than in Germany . Thirteen times more likely than in Japan.
The statistics show that two-thirds of murder in the USA includes gun involvement. Whereas in Britain, the figure is just under 10%. That is a large, large gap and frankly, very scary.
What's more is that Obama talked a load of garbage and claimed to be sorry for all the conflict and damage that has been caused yet has decided to nothing about the easy availability of guns. Mitt Romney - his Republican enemy - has also decided that he would do nothing about it.
What kind of buffoons are they that are ruining America? Obama is in charge of over 3.5 hundred million people. Surely, he should be aiming to keep them safer?
And by implementing stricter controls such as licensing systems and checking the history of certain people before giving them a gun - though may not be ideal - but would still make the USA a safer environment.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 4, 2012 16:03:48 GMT
I don't think you realise any gun controls will lose you the Election - by a landslide. Its a cultural gun-carrying right to bear arms.....sad isn't ?
I worked for an American high-tech Corporate a few years ago. In a social dinner with an IT VicePresident and his wife - she mentioned that she bought him another gun for his recent birthday. I casually asked 'how many guns do you have?' He said ' 12' - without thinking I said 'why do you want 12 guns?' There was a stony silence for a long time. It was clear I had put foot in mouth. He then let me off by saying 'I like having guns'. He knew, and I knew I wasn't going to be invited into his team in California.
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 4, 2012 16:22:21 GMT
BADM, but who were the people that allowed civilians to have ownership to guns? Look at the state America is in. More chances of robberies and other criminal offences. Yes its a big country, but it is not safe. The fact that regular people can have higher tech weaponry and advanced ammunition more so than the police or armed forces is very frightening.
The Supreme Court have approved the benefits of tight gun control laws, as long as they aren't permanently banned from all regular people. Again - still not ideal, but would make America safer by adhering to these regulations. The safety of the American people should be the priority first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 4, 2012 16:27:05 GMT
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
as the Americans say:- period !!
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 4, 2012 16:42:33 GMT
All leaders should agree to eradicate that rule - it shouldn't apply anymore for the safety of all the Americans. Then the public would be forced to vote for one of them, even if they may not like the new rules.
Times have changed from the 18th Century. There were anti-slavery movements and Wars as well as the Jacksonian democracy which might explain the regular usage of weapons and where the ethics were completely different in that time frame.
There is no need for citizens to have guns, especially when they do harm than good these days.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 4, 2012 16:50:17 GMT
Ammaar I am going to disagree on this one - I think all people should be allowed to own weapons if they so chose, within limits to stop the ownership of automatic weapons. Unfortunately banning weapons just means that normal people cannot get access to them to defend themselves, whilst criminals will still get them on the black market.
Here's a very interesting thought - What if a nice respectable chap, at the same movie premier, who would never dream of killing anyone, but DOES want to defend himself had been armed? Would he have blown the coward James Holmes away as soon as he started and possibly saved the lives of countless people? Would the James Howard's of this world - who are cowards through and through - really want to go into a situation where people shot back?
99.99% of people, if they had guns, would only use them for self defence. The other 0.01% already have guns.
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 4, 2012 17:11:09 GMT
Jayram, as I said although it's not ideal, I wouldn't be totally against normal people having dangerous weapons if there were licensing covenants and stricter background checks.
I'm sorry, but the statistics show that people with guns are culpable of crime and it would be too much of a risk to give the average joe a gun.
Stricter rules applied please.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 4, 2012 18:01:13 GMT
Jayram, as I said although it's not ideal, I wouldn't be totally against normal people having dangerous weapons if there were licensing covenants and stricter background checks. I'm sorry, but the statistics show that people with guns are culpable of crime and it would be too much of a risk to give the average joe a gun. Stricter rules applied please. Well yes - the statistics do show that more guns equals more gun crime - but is there a direct correlation? I don't know, Ammaar. Rather like the famous fireman quote on stats - it's statistically accurate to say that the more fireman that try to put out a fire, the more people will die. It's actually true, but the missing ingredient is that more fireman turn up to put out bigger fires. Would more guns in Britain equal more gun crime, and less guns in America equal less injury/murder there? I don't have an answer to the problem of gun crime, but just think that removing guns may not necessarily decrease violence and murder.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 4, 2012 18:41:24 GMT
every time a nutter in UK shoots people- the guns were licensed. Criminals don't register their guns - they are bought on the black market. We banned certain guns - however 99% were owned and registered, locked up in gun-safes. Has it changed anything? No it hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 4, 2012 18:52:01 GMT
Gun crime is decreasing in the UK though and that's the difference.
|
|
|
Post by ALTBOULI on Aug 4, 2012 21:31:52 GMT
This country is far safer than America simply because it is so much more difficult to have a gun here, Jayram you said 99% of people would only use guns for self defence but there have been studies to suggest otherwise and I remember hearing that findings showed that people reacted very differently especially when they had a weapon close by. The suggestions being that this irrational thinking can be brought about by a sense of power that the subject believe that they think they have. I don’t know how accurate these experiments were but from a personal point of view I would feel far safer in a country with gun restrictions that in a country without one.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 4, 2012 21:34:47 GMT
This country is far safer than America simply because it is so much more difficult to have a gun here, Jayram you said 99% of people would only use guns for self defence but there have been studies to suggest otherwise and I remember hearing that findings showed that people reacted very differently especially when they had a weapon close by. The suggestions being that this irrational thinking can be brought about by a sense of power that the subject believe that they think they have. I don’t know how accurate these experiments were but from a personal point of view I would feel far safer in a country with gun restrictions that in a country without one. I can sort of buy the psychological aspect of it... still if you look at America, much of the gun crime is related to other crime. We've had as many nutters over shooting people randomly as over there... also if someone breaks into your house I think you should every right to shoot them dead.
|
|
|
Post by ALTBOULI on Aug 4, 2012 21:56:25 GMT
This country is far safer than America simply because it is so much more difficult to have a gun here, Jayram you said 99% of people would only use guns for self defence but there have been studies to suggest otherwise and I remember hearing that findings showed that people reacted very differently especially when they had a weapon close by. The suggestions being that this irrational thinking can be brought about by a sense of power that the subject believe that they think they have. I don’t know how accurate these experiments were but from a personal point of view I would feel far safer in a country with gun restrictions that in a country without one. I can sort of buy the psychological aspect of it... still if you look at America, much of the gun crime is related to other crime. We've had as many nutters over shooting people randomly as over there... also if someone breaks into your house I think you should every right to shoot them dead. If a person breaks into your house and threatens you or your family then yes you have the right to protect yourself and your family by any means necessary. However if someone breaks into your house just to steal something then it is beyond excessive to shoot them dead. Also if you can easily obtain a gun, what’s there to stop the criminal entering your house from possessing a weapon such as a gun? This is one of the tings that I believe the American authorities are having trouble dealing with.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 5, 2012 12:05:12 GMT
The American constitution would prevent the banning of guns. I don't know what it would take to change the constitution, I mean, wasn't it created by the founding fathers ?? I know the likes of Bush has done things that are unconstitutional and therefore illegal .. but they don't seem to get much media attention - only the alternative media report these things.
As said, any president or presidential candidate who moves to outlaw gun ownership would be voted out immediately I think. There is no solution to the US problem of gun crime, if you are allowed to own a gun legally you will inevitably have crackpots who will do crazy things.
At best they should outlaw automatic and semi automatic weapons, I mean, why would anyone need any form of automatic weapon unless they plan on making carnage ?!!
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 5, 2012 12:09:55 GMT
a resident of Main St, Hicksville fears being attacked by a horde of terrorists - so needs at least 6 handguns, 3 automatics and 3000 rounds of ammo.
|
|