Waco Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 not once have i ever felt threatened by the possibility of gun violence. Neither have I, and I live in South Carolina. But I digress, across the board, if there are more guns, then there will be more gun related crime. The UK doesn't allow a normal citizen to carry a gun at all, but gun crime isn't through the roof because guns are very hard to come-by here. Look at the law around knife crime here. Everyone has a knife in one form or another, be them kitchen knives, carpenters tools, etc. so we have amazing rates of knife related deaths and injuries instead Although, fireworks are now becoming a weapon-of-choice... The end result is more people == more crime regardless of any laws restricting supposed weapons. Banning things never works. I understand that the UK is far more okay with "big brother" than the US but the end result of any of these debates is that there are bad people and bad people do bad things regardless of what laws are in place to stop them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizzlenitch Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Please learn to recognise humour before replying. Perhaps you were using humor. But does that mean that you really do not think that we shouldn't have them? I'm confused... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Perhaps you were using humor. But does that mean that you really do not think that we shouldn't have them? I'm confused... He was posting in jest, hence the smiley face. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinexis Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) So then only rich people can afford to shoot their guns? Huh? The comment was a joke =P But at least that would knock crime and even accidents down by a damn good portion The end result is more people == more crime regardless of any laws restricting supposed weapons. Banning things never works. I understand that the UK is far more okay with "big brother" than the US but the end result of any of these debates is that there are bad people and bad people do bad things regardless of what laws are in place to stop them. Actually that's a good point. The UK isn't okay with the big brother thing but no-one's willing to do anything about it, and I'll hold my hands up when I say I don't know why that is the case... But as for the more people = more crime thing, that's true, if you don't work by percentages =P Edited November 23, 2009 by Danrik Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchuwato Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Perhaps you were using humor. But does that mean that you really do not think that we shouldn't have them? I'm confused... Well, since you'd like to know my honest opinion, the literal reading of the Second Amendment is outmoded and irrelevant in modern society. Most Americans fail to realise that the language used by the comparatively learned men who penned is far removed from modern usage, and cannot be literally interpreted as "the right to own a gun". We have a law in the UK that says that "Welshmen are prohibited from entering Chester before the sun rises Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Well, since you'd like to know my honest opinion, the literal reading of the Second Amendment is outmoded and irrelevant in modern society. Most Americans fail to realise that the language used by the comparatively learned men who penned is far removed from modern usage, and cannot be literally interpreted as "the right to own a gun". The precedence set as of right now is that it means exactly that though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinexis Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Well, since you'd like to know my honest opinion, the literal reading of the Second Amendment is outmoded and irrelevant in modern society. Most Americans fail to realise that the language used by the comparatively learned men who penned is far removed from modern usage, and cannot be literally interpreted as "the right to own a gun". We have a law in the UK that says that "Welshmen are prohibited from entering Chester before the sun rises Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchuwato Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 The precedence set as of right now is that it means exactly that though. Doesn't make it right Wow ._. the things you can dig up... I knew that there was a law stating that all taxi's must have a bale of hay in the boot, but that was about it rolleyes.gif There's also a similar one in York, but I can't remember what... It's also required of Taxi drivers to ask all passengers if they have smallpox or the plague Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Doesn't make it right Doesn't make it wrong either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizzlenitch Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 I agree with you that the Constitution is a dated document, but it is nonetheless the basis for federal law here in the US. Its interpretation is the realm of the Supreme Court, and, as Waco noted, current precedence is that the law is indeed interpreted as the right to possess a firearm. So... therefore... as interpreted by the Supreme Court that is exactly what it means. Forgive me for not realizing your jest, but I do feel strongly on this issue. I was not trying to attack you personally, just trying to understand from what perspective you were coming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchuwato Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 I agree with you that the Constitution is a dated document, but it is nonetheless the basis for federal law here in the US. Its interpretation is the realm of the Supreme Court, and, as Waco noted, current precedence is that the law is indeed interpreted as the right to possess a firearm. So... therefore... as interpreted by the Supreme Court that is exactly what it means. Forgive me for not realizing your jest, but I do feel strongly on this issue. I was not trying to attack you personally, just trying to understand from what perspective you were coming. It's cool So yeah, I take issue with the accepted interpretation of the document, and the masses' use of it as carte blanche to do whatever they like with firearms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabrielT Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Fire arms safety was a class given in 5th grade at our elementary, we even go to leave school one day to shoot guns. I don't see the problem with education but I don't think it should be mandatory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now