freedomdwarf1
Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance
I think it is a reasonabke question, tbat those in countries who have willingly handed in their guns could maybe answer; if tbe insults and snark were set aside for one freaking day.
I have asked myself this question. If I willingly relinquished my guns, is my police force and government incorruptible enough to actually destroy them - OR - would they turn around and sell them to whomever has the cash.
How did other countries peacefully disarm and protect theif itizens?
Is this possible here, in America, in our current mess of a corrupt government where the only way to get something passed or accomplished is to set aside your own personal ethics and get dirty with some you scratch my back I will s ratch yours.
I own 2 riffles and a pistol and I would happily hand them over, to live in a country free of gun crimes where children didn't die by bullet, if some of these existing problems were corected. So please, those in Australia and the UK, put azixe your snark and your past arguments and hatred of whichever troll or moron or whatever and discuss options.
At this point, it appears the only way to make a peaceful world possible iz to tar and feather every last politician and rip up existing legislation and make government pay equitable to minimum wage and lobbying punishable.
I will try to answer this without snark - it is a reasonable question.
I think the problem lies deep in the fabric of US society.
The law enforcement is slow, weak, and generally unresponsive (comparatively).
Add to that the inherent clinging to a 200+ year-old document that is no longer fit for purpose and well past it's sell-by date and the general paranoia of the US citizens.
We had a similar situation just after the first world war.
From Wiki: "The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following World War I and also fears of working-class unrest in this period. "An Act to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition", its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfill its commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention."
It can be seen from this law, the government had the foresight to realise that uncontrolled firearms amongst the populace could be inviting long-term trouble - the very thing we are seeing in the US today.
With this law, they effectively repealed the firearms laws that had been in place since 1198.
The original law revised by Sir William Blackstone in 1707 formed the English law from which the basis of what is now the US second amendment was written.
In England, the 1920 firearms act curtailed the ownership and use of firearms to the people.
We could still have them, in any number, but had to register each and every one of them with a separate firearms certificate that also specified the use of each and every weapon.
It also effectively prohibited having those firearms in public places.
This, on its own, placed the whole country, from coast-to-coast, as a 'gun free zone'.
As of 1937, the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger".
We also trusted our law enforcement to actually destroy the guns that were turned in; the same with more recent knife amnesties.
I don't see that level of trust in the US - which I guess is why you posed the question.
By this time, the whole gun ownership culture just died a death. People realised the benefits of such restrictions and basically, just didn't want them any more.
We can have them, but can't have them in public beyond our own personal property boundaries unless we comply with even stricter transport regulations.
Since WWII, there have been a number of further restrictions culminating in the most significant ruling that hand guns were effectively prohibited after the Dunblane massacre of 1997.
Alongside these changes, our police forces have been trained in better techniques and much faster response times when the need arises; even to the point of having numerous Armed Response Vehicles if required.
So, in brief, we (the government) repealed our right to bear arms, restricted where we could play with our toys and what toys we could play with - backed up by a better trained and faster police force.
As a result, we (the general public) no longer want firearms except for hunting and target practice and generally no longer own them.
As a side-effect of Joe Schmoe not owning weapons (by choice, not by law), criminals find it hard to acquire them and as such generally aren't armed.
This is now the cultural chasm that we see between the UK (and similarly, Australia, Canada, Europe etc) and the US.
Those in the US that support the need (and want) for guns just cannot see or comprehend the other side of the coin.
For the US to go the same route, you firstly have to change the mindset of the people and completely re-train your police forces.
You have to remove the mis-trust of government and general paranoia.
That won't be easy.
It requires a lot of trust and that seems to be severely lacking in the US.
Shit still happens once in a while - nothing is ever 100%.
But look at the numbers - it is staggeringly different.
In another thread a little while back, bama was extolling the fact of reduced crime by guns and that it was reducing - which he thought was exceptionally good (despite the fact that stats showed the biggest increase in gun deaths in 20 years).
By my calculations, to get anywhere near our levels, it would take well over a century just to get the numbers even close; and that's assuming it manages to stay at those decreasing levels.
I don't call that very good progress at all.
We achieved our levels within a handful of years and certainly within a generation.
It didn't happen peacefully for many gun holders - but that soon passed.
They were prosecuted and often jailed for flouting the law.
People soon learned that they were not above the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Since the view is unchanged you can hardly blame valuing firearms on something that did not come into existence until after that value was well established . You will find that there are far more people here (% wise) who have an individualistic outlook than in other countries.
Our laws had been in force since 1198 and further revised in 1707 (which you stole for the 2nd).
We had an inherent value of bearing weapons before firearms were invented.
We still repealed the laws within a single generation (about 17 years).
That debunks your theory of the entrenched value of firearms.
_____________________________
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell, 1903-1950
|
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread