Jump to content


school shootings in the states again

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#61 Sûlherokhh


    Sagacious Engineer

  • Project Team
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Central Germany
  • Projects:S.E.E., Sage A.I., Code Advisor
  •  'Axe'er of the Gordic Knot

Posted 24 October 2007 - 06:46 PM

I am just elaborating on the effect of removing the guns from the hands of citizens.

I know, this is WikiPedia, but still the info is supported by what i learned about the british and american history in the past 15 years.:

In an effort to consolidate power in 17th century England, the Catholic King James II of England sought to disarm Protestants by discharging them from the militia, both in Ireland and in England, replacing them with Catholics. This policy of consolidation also included an aspect of shifting control of the weapons from citizens' militia to the professional army, thereby reducing the number of weapons in the hands of his Protestant subjects and political opponents. This disarmament policy included enforcement of the Game Act, and an archaic measure from 1328 that forbade men to ride armed 'in affray of the peace'.[11]


Any attempt to remove this right is met with distrust, isn't it? I am talking about the emotional response here, not reasoning based on the probable rise of gun related crimes.

Axed Head and A.I. Coder for S.E.E. and ... stuff

".. coding is basically boring. What's fun is finding out how things work, take them apart and then put them together in ways that were not intended nor even conceived."

#62 duke_Qa


    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 24 October 2007 - 07:35 PM

Israel is not a country i would use as a example of how firearms does not cause gun crime. there are way to many other things to worry about in that country than getting robbed by some drug-addict.

here we got about just as many guns as in the states, but we got strict gun-controls and rarely have trouble with people using guns. firstly you can most of the time only use hunting gear like shotguns and rifles, which are very unwieldy to hide and use inside buildings. secondly, every single gun has to be registered. thirdly, if you want to have pistols, i believe you either have to have competition certificates or being a part of the local military. smaller firearms are generally looked down upon because they are not meant to hunt wildlife. automatic weaponry besides the standby military personnel's ag3 is more or less illegal.

so the basics for gun control in the US would in my opinion be: get the pistols and smaller firearms the hell out of there. its those that kill, and its those that are the most useless in militia operations. longarms and automatic weaponry are harder to use in a covert manner and are therefore not as dangerous.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange

#63 Tom


    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 25 October 2007 - 10:32 AM

But not letting people have guns provides the opportunity to foster 'trust', in the long term that is.

Trust in the general population or in the government? There should in reality always be trust in people who know each other, unless for obvious reasons a person has a bad reputation. But as for trusting a government, and institution that has a significant amount of power, it should never be trusted. It should always be moderated by the people to ensure no groups can gain power and have the opportunity to manipulate it.

The Right to Bear Arms stems from people's basic right to have a means to defend themselves, not some insidious distrust of all authority. It also comes from the fact that people hunted for food at the time the Constitution was made, and people still hunt today

I think the right to bear arms is a fundamental part of having a free civilisation. If you take guns away from the population and the only people who can have guns are "officials" then you get a strange balance of power within a nation. Every vicious dictator has disarmed its population before exerting more power over them. There is an obvious reason why as it severely gives a disadvantage to organised movements or even possible revolutions.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users