The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[ginnyfizz]

On a random note, do London cops even carry guns?

 

Some of them do, but to be quite honest they are certainly less to be trusted with a gun than your average sporting shooter like myself. Ask the family of Jean Charles de Menezes what they think about the way the Metropolitan police handle their sidearms.

 

That is a very interesting post, bben46. In general terms I wish we had a right like the Second Amendment provides, but with the controls put in place, only less strict than they are in the UK. Private individuals are not allowed to have fully automatic weapons here AT ALL. Handguns are almost completely banned for private ownership, which means that our pistol shooting team cannot train at home. Slaughtermen and veterinarians are an exception. I'd say make our Olympic teams an exception too. After all we are in the frame for medals, and we are hosting the blooming Olympics the next time around. As Wikipedia can explain that one more clearly than I can here goes;-

 

"Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been the case previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. However, it was still illegal for Britain's top pistol shooters to train in England, Scotland or Wales. As a result, British shooters currently spend 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland, and receive no public sports funding because their events are considered illegal in the UK"

 

The very pertinent point in your post, Ben, is the fact that Chicago, New York and Washington DC have the highest rates of gun crime and the tightest gun control. That convinces me that the knee jerk reaction that we have had over here to the isolated instances of people running amok with guns serves no purpose.

[Aurielius]

As a side note, I am an inveterate hunter and never once felt the need to take an automatic weapon into the field. The second point I would like to make is that the 2nd Amendment allows us to own weapons, but the argument that we need automatic assault rifles to protect ourselves from an overarching government fails to take into consideration their limited range, a single shot bolt action rifle would be far more useful in that form of resistance if need came. Fire once and move location, first rule of sniping. Lastly all my weapons are registered and licensed which is not the slightest problem to me to accommodate my states regulations in that regard.

[RZ1029]

I never hunt with an automatic weapon, I'm not even sure that's legal. You also made a good point of assault rifles vs carbines/bolt-action, which I agree with. All of my weapons are legal, they're all registered with the various bureaus they're supposed to be.

 

Honestly, I own assault weapons for fun. No other reason. It's a fun way to blow off steam at a firing range for an hour or two. And now I'm sure there's a Democrat somewhere that just had a heart attack. But yeah, they're novelty items to me. Plus, I occasionally participate in simunition 'battles'. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, think of it like paintball, but we use real guns. If you watch many documentaries, you've probably seen it before. They're used to train a lot of military forces.

 

@ginnyfizz

20-30 days a year? I don't see how in the world you guys even manage to make a showing. I shoot more than that, and I'm not a true 'professional'.

[ginnyfizz]

No, it isn't the done thing to hunt with automatic weapons, and I wouldn't want to. *Shudders at the thought of how badly that would go down at a driven shoot, as the beaters would be in serious danger*. Shotguns for the birdies, rifles for Bambi, all the better to have venison on Boxing Day...oops, but yes, I guess deer stalking as we practice it here in the UK is very much akin to sniping, lurking in the heather for long periods and being very patient.

 

Hehe RZ1029, in my more athletic youth I was a member of a ladies paintballing team called the Hells Belles...but yeah, it is amazing how our pistol shooters do as well as they do considering what ridiculous restrictions they are under. They are just very good and very dedicated.

[RZ1029]

Honestly, as far as hunting, I don't even think semi-automatic rifles should be used. It takes all the challenge out of it. I occasionally stalk deer, but I've adopted the lazy American way of setting in a box for a few hours and hope one wanders along. Not to mention, if someone ever hunted with an automatic weapon... exactly how much usable meat would be left? That many bullets would probably tear it apart, I think.

[Aurielius]

The comment about automatic weapons was hyperbole Ladies and Gentleman,( it's illegal in every state and province i have ever hunted in) though I have seen people bring a auto handgun to finish an inept kill. As for beaters driving the game, that seems to take some of the challenge out of the sport, bearing in mind that you are armed the game is not and it's ability to use cover and be alert to possible dangers is the only equalizing element that it posses, but thats just my view of course. Edited December 20, 2010 by Aurielius

[RZ1029]

Anyways, to avoid further derailment. (Yes, I know hunting is related, but the topic is gun control.)

 

Any thoughts about the attempted shooting at the school board meeting in Florida? http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-school-board-shooting-survivors-recount-pure-terror/story?id=12399935&tqkw=&tqshow=WN

 

Sorry I couldn't find a less-cluttered link.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/25/sweden.serial.shooter/index.html -- Swedish Serial Killer

 

Also, thoughts? Handguns, organized murderer, gun control?

 

And as a side note, anyone find it interesting that when I searched 'gun' on 3 different news websites, I only found exactly four matches in the past half-year that were positive, and about two/three thousand negative articles.

Edited December 20, 2010 by RZ1029

[JimboUK]

Anyways, to avoid further derailment. (Yes, I know hunting is related, but the topic is gun control.)

 

Any thoughts about the attempted shooting at the school board meeting in Florida? http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-school-board-shooting-survivors-recount-pure-terror/story?id=12399935&tqkw=&tqshow=WN

 

Sorry I couldn't find a less-cluttered link.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/25/sweden.serial.shooter/index.html -- Swedish Serial Killer

 

Also, thoughts? Handguns, organized murderer, gun control?

 

And as a side note, anyone find it interesting that when I searched 'gun' on 3 different news websites, I only found exactly four matches in the past half-year that were positive, and about two/three thousand negative articles.

 

I don't see how tighter gun control would have stopped that, if someone wants a gun then they will get one. As with any commodity if there is a demand you can always find someone willing to supply.

[Aurielius]

Also, thoughts? Handguns, organized murderer, gun control?

 

Since brevity is the soul of wit I'll be brief.

 

Handguns, have a couple, useful in the right hands, destructive in the wrong hands like all dangerous tools.

Organized Murder I'm against it, since it is a violation every counties legal code that I'm aware of, aside from being morally wrong.

Gun Control, if that means registering them and keeping them out of the hands of felons I'm for it, if that means keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens then I'm against that.

[Vindekarr]

Exactly guys.

 

Australia has pretty rigid gun laws, yet every time a major drug or bikie gang bust happens, they find thousands of rounds of ammunition and dozens of weapons, mostly medium-high tech, high grade former eastern bloc hardware, mixed with middle aged ex American/ex ADF gear.

 

The only people that gun control takes weapons out of the reach of is civilians, and about 99% of those wouldnt hurt anyone with them anyway.

 

Screening? needs to be done, licence? ofcourse, it's CONTROL we need, to outright prohibition.

 

Because prohibition just makes the underground stronger, it gives them yet another market to entirely dominate.

 

For example, I think we'd get half as many overdoses, and a tenth as many drug gangs, if you could buy narcotics, restricted, at a chemist. If you require that they be used in controlled injecting rooms, yet could be purchased legitimately from a counter somewhere, you'd immediately rule half the underworld dealers out of the picture.

 

Or prohibition of alcahole for goodness sake. Banning something never works, crackdowns never work, if you want to save lives, you've got to think carefully and act carefully. The sledgehammer approach to law enforcement never works.