Law Gun Control: A Global Overview

[nonoob]

Some people died in one city, so fuck the children.

The non-stop Chicago citizen's children deaths, the school victims, or all of them? Do tell.

 

[Cartiac]

Democrats are the only ones trying to put an end to the violence.
What does the right done? Thoughts and prayers aren’t working.

Even if we accept that as truth, then you would have to admit the Democrats have done a pretty shitty job haven't they? It is all those damn Republicans controlling everything right? Just wait until Democrats get power to do something!

 

[Barteh]

Man I’m glad I live in a nation where people’s main motivation for having guns is hunting and sport-shooting. Anyone saying they have guns to fend of a tyrannical government would rightly be seen as very weird.

It works though. I've seen some videos when the tyrannical government tried to shut down some business in the US during the scamdemic. Owners/employees inside with a couple of rifles when they tried closing em down, guess how that went?

 

[My Spot]

The non-stop Chicago citizen's children deaths, the school victims, or all of them? Do tell.

Shh, he doesn't know that less than 2% of child gun homicide victims were killed at a school in the past 20 years.

 

[Cartiac]

Man I’m glad I live in a nation where people’s main motivation for having guns is hunting and sport-shooting. Anyone saying they have guns to fend of a tyrannical government would rightly be seen as very weird.

I don't know what country you live in or why you are talking about hunting and sport shooting since the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution states very clearly and absolutely with no restrictions "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”"

You also never went to a history class in your life have you? Ever heard of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Heavily armed non-government militias have given the US military challenges in war due to so much of those populations keeping and bearing arms.

 

[nonoob]

Guns were illegal for civilians in the British colonies as well. That is why the King thought he could control the entire colonial population with just a few armed members of his Militia, but that didn't work out so well when those civilians all beared the Arms they were keeping and regulated that Militia to establish the security of a free State.

Founding Fathers saw the Brit's unchecked tyranny, that's why the 2nd Amendment was, and still is, so important, unless you are unfortunately stuck in a scumbag-ran city that removed the right to protect yourself.

Exactly! And not a single gun control measure they talk about would make a single bit of difference in changing that.

The PTB know that for a fact. Only less intelligent people fall for the idiocy of ANY POS Governor that pushed moronic "gun free cities" and doesn't strictly enforce laws in place to hold criminals accountable.

 

[Jonny Ninja]

It's not a discussion that lends itself to emperical evidence. Anecdotal is as good as you will get. If you disagree, fine. You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

There’s no evidence because there’s no appetite for it, as you’ve already been told by other UK posters. I’m ex Forces, so have used and been around firearms. I’ve never met one person that really cared 2 shits about gun ownership in the UK. It’s a non issue

 

[KnightTemplar]

There’s no evidence because there’s no appetite for it, as you’ve already been told by other UK posters. I’m ex Forces, so have used and been around firearms. I’ve never met one person that really cared 2 shits about gun ownership in the UK.

So your evidence is anecdotal as well. And therefor no more or less valid than mine.

 

[KnightTemplar]

This is literally the reason the 2nd Amendment was created and is so adamantly defended.

Guns were illegal for civilians in the British colonies as well. That is why the King thought he could control the entire colonial population with just a few armed members of his Militia, but that didn't work out so well when those civilians all beared the Arms they were keeping and regulated that Militia to establish the security of a free State.

A frightened politician is an honest politician. Well, for a given value of, "honest" at any rate.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

Disagree. I've been to Army recruiting events, and teenagers are falling over themselves to get a chance to try the various weapons systems. The gym I go to is run by Edinburgh Uni, and it has it's own rifle shooting club and firing range. There's a waiting list to join, even though a student has to provide his own rifle and licence.

The demand is there.

People will use guns at a range.

That does not mean they want to own one.

 

[Cartiac]

Founding Fathers saw the Brit's unchecked tyranny, that's why the 2nd Amendment was, and still is, so important, unless you are unfortunately stuck in a scumbag-ran city that removed the right to protect yourself.

The PTB know that for a fact. Only less intelligent people fall for the idiocy of ANY POS Governor that pushed moronic "gun free cities" and doesn't strictly enforce laws in place to hold criminals accountable.

Tell me about it, I have residences in Los Angeles and San Diego, so I am very familiar with scumbag run cities that not only have removed the right to protect yourself. They also have made the only punishable crime taking action to stop criminals.

 

[Jonny Ninja]

So your evidence is anecdotal as well. And therefor no more or less valid than mine.

As you said yourself there is no other evidence. No groups asking for a change to gun ownership rights, no motions in parliament, absolutely nothing. I mean where the fuck are all these people that want the law changed other than some random army cadets and a gym in Edinburgh lmao? I think farrage once mentioned it as a policy for one of his failed political parties.

 

[Cartiac]

A frightened politician is an honest politician. Well, for a given value of, "honest" at any rate.

The most frightened politician is the one that is forced to live by their own words.

 

[KnightTemplar]

As you said yourself there is no other evidence. No groups asking for a change to gun ownership rights, no motions in parliament, absolutely nothing. I mean where the fuck are all these people that want the law changed other than some random army cadets and a gym in Edinburgh lmao? I think farrage once mentioned it as a policy for one of his failed political parties.

A guy opened a gun shop in Edinburgh. Lot of complaints from pussies moaning about how it would lower the tone of the neighborhood and there wasn't any demand for gun shops in Edinburgh anyway.

Over a year later, the gun shop owner is still going strong. Last time I passed it, there was several customers waiting for it to open.

As for wanting to change the law, where the fuck do you think you live, a democracy?

 

[Cartiac]

There’s no evidence because there’s no appetite for it, as you’ve already been told by other UK posters. I’m ex Forces, so have used and been around firearms. I’ve never met one person that really cared 2 shits about gun ownership in the UK. It’s a non issue

Ever think people might not want to go around bragging about illegal activity? Not to mention it is pretty sad to brag about a military that wants nothing to do with guns, no wonder we had to save your asses from Hitler and Hirohito.

 

[jefferz]

Even if we accept that as truth, then you would have to admit the Democrats have done a pretty shitty job haven't they? It is all those damn Republicans controlling everything right? Just wait until Democrats get power to do something!

Well bud, every time the democrats pass a law to try to prevent children from getting massacred, guess who fights it?

 

[Deorum]

And that’s what we’ve always done. So instead, you’re gonna take potshots at my views from the sidelines? Just make up my argument for me and then call it “some bullshit thing”? Aight, I see how it is…

Potshots? I thought I was being incredibly generous. The "bullshit" was obviously sarcastic -- federal statutes are made through an Act of Congress and no small matter. Any individual rights granted from them just aren't comparable to those enumerated and protected by the Constitution. I'm glad you're all for states' rights, but I already know how conditional that is. Are we repealing all federal gun laws in tandem with that, then? lol. I'm all for state rights myself, but the idea the Constitution ought not to be incorporated and enforced towards them is crazy. It's a minimalist framework. Or is it ONLY the 2A that shouldn't be, right? You're exactly what Thomas was talking about in his opinion for NYSRPA v. Bruen.

I think it could use a good ol Repeal and Replace, personally.

Yeah, incredibly generous.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Weird how gun controlls only care bout children being shot to death if it happens at a school. That makes up less than 2% of all minor gun homicide victims in the past 20 years.

I don't see how this argument is helpful if someone is arguing in favour of guns.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

It's not a discussion that lends itself to emperical evidence. Anecdotal is as good as you will get. If you disagree, fine. You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

Gun ownership: three quarters of Britons want stricter laws | YouGov

Approaching two in five think firearm ownership should be illegal

yougov.co.uk

That's the last poll I can find. Only about 1% of respondents wanted controls to be looser.

 

[panamaican]

To me, the issue really is multiple micro issues that have become merged into a single political loyalty test and lost any attachment to reality.

The first issue being "What can a person own?" I think that should be unrestricted so long as it can be safely stored. That fits within the militia idea. What is considered "safely stored" needs to be fleshed out.

The second issue being "Who can own the items from the first issue?" I think that should also be unrestricted so long as the person isn't a threat to the community. That caveat being a really hard one to nail down. I don't think ex-felons are a threat to the community but I do think people with mental instability issues are. I'm sure everyone has their own definitions.

The third issue being "What can the government do so long as it doesn't interfere with the first two?" This would be things like gun registries, background checks, storage requirements, gun free zones, etc. I think the government should have plenty of leeway here. But this is also where the pro-2A crowd has turned this into a political test. To be pro-2A to the far right, one must oppose everything in this category plus the other 2 categories.

If the question was simply one of ownership, what a person owns and keeps on their property shouldn't interfere with anyone's life. However, once a person leaves their property, their actions can have consequences for society at large. And society at large is where the government is supposed to be involved.