The guns in Britain were registered. People had to turn them in because the government knew where they were. There is no federal registration for semi-autos pistols and rifles in America. Even the average family with kids to feed would not feel compelled to turn in their unregistered handgun, because nobody knows they have it. There are hundreds of millions of unregistered firearms in America, they cannot be effectively removed from circulation. At all.
And they were already registered, so the government knew where to go get them if they were not surrendered.
However, if you ignore all the differences, the two situations are exactly alike!
Actually, bucko, if that kind of shit started happening regularly then people would give a damn - and quite a large one, at that.
Which part of “yes, if necessary” don’t you understand?
It’s hilarious how you’ve gone from
to
so quickly. Not comfortable any more with waving off all those deaths as necessary to public safety?
Since the ban on handguns the UK has gone on to be themost violent country in Europe, and one of the most violent countries in the world. The US had repealed the assault weapons ban, and expanded concealed carry laws. Crime has dropped and is now at the lowest level in 50 years.
I know it is hard to believe for Americans who think all Britishers go around with a crumpet in one hand and a cup of tea in the other, but America is a much less violent society and the idea that we should be trying to copy their policies is the exact opposite of what should be happening.
So the anti-gun position is to kill everyone who disagrees with them?
Using the same guns that you find so morally objectionable, I assume.
This would be the very definition of a facist dictatorship, which is the entire reason we have guns to begin with… it gives us the ability to defend ourselves from people advocate unlimited mass murder of anyone who disagrees with them.
Yea, have you ever actually tried to talk to one of those Brit types? I don’t think they even speak the same language!
The UK has problems, yes, and I’m not going to get into arguing with your cites - for all I know they might be spot on.
But I’d suggest that you’re using post hoc type logic here. The handgun ban had nothing to do with any change in crime levels in the UK - the very few people who did own handguns did not routinely carry them or use them for self defence.
I do hope you’re not trying to suggest this is cause and effect, as that would be ridiculous - handguns, when we had a few, were never widely used for personal defence or to deter violence, so their removal can’t have caused an increase in violence.
:eek: That isn’t the case?!?
But seriously, I thought a lot of the unrest in Britain was the result of pressures resulting from its diminished role on the world stage compared to the massive empire of yore. Plus perhaps some difficulty assimilating the wide variety of immigrants.
If I’m wrong, go ahead and call me an ignorant Yank as long as you give me the correct answer- I am genuinely curious. Anyway, even if my assumptions are wrong, American culture is simply different.
Most likely, puddleglum’s Daily Fail cite is just tabloid hysteria, although I note they were honest enough to include a quotation suggesting that the alarming statistics could be skewed by differences in what is considered and recorded as ‘a violent crime’ in the UK vs other places.
For example, I started getting a lot of prank calls earlier this year - they started off just being idiotic nonsense, but eventually escalated to containing offensive personal attacks and threats - at which point, I involved the police, and it was recorded as a crime (probably one that appears in the stats as ‘violent’).
Danger, Will Robinson, I detect a gigantic post hoc fallacy! Violent crime in the U.S. was declining before the Assault Weapons Ban was put in place, continued to decline while the ban was in effect, and kept going down after the ban expired (it was not repealed). Your cite offers four reasons the crime rate has continued to go down: longer sentences, smarter law enforcement, the end of the crack epidemic, and the aging of the U.S. population. There is not a word in there about the availability of guns - which is no surprise because Americans had lots of guns before, during, and after the Assault Weapons Ban. I’m not sure how concealed carry laws have changed by year and I won’t assert that it had no effect at all, but since the AWB had nothing to do with crime going down, I don’t think you can pin the entire trend on concealed carry laws. I’m just as skeptical that Britain’s problems have anything to do with the lack of guns over there.
Well, i personally think it is wonderful that it is going to be so easy and hope we get right on it.
So the solution for a teen killing kids is the police killing people with no previous police records who have been turned into criminals by a change in laws against owning certain inanimate objects? That’s much better.
Ah, “certain inanimate objects”. That’s nearly as rich as “a gun is just a device for causing a piece of metal to move very quickly”.
I may be quite wrong here, but I thought that one point of law-making is that sometimes previously illegal activities become legal, and other times previously legal activities become illegal, and in either case the thing to do is to act according to the law as it now is, not as you wish it still was.
So many “It won’t work here” comments.:rolleyes:
The USA has a different culture and the gun culture you have is far stronger than anywhere else I can think of. But that doesn’t mean reform won’t work, just means it will take longer and require careful implementation.
Two things that work well in Australia since our laws changed are compulsory registration and Firearms licences.
Before I can legally purchase or own a gun, I need to get a licence. To get the licence I need to attend a mandatory education and training session, have a background check conducted by the Police and nominate why I want guns, (Sporting shooter, work in security, farmer or primary producer, varmint hunting, gun club etc). The reason determines what category of licence I get, which determines what kind of firearms I can purchase and keep.
You CANNOT legally purchase weapons without producing the licence and completing a registration form and undergoing a waiting period. Once I get the weapon, it is registered and must be stored in a locked cabinet. The Police have the right to enter my house to check that it’s stored correctly.
This licencing process means that people with criminal records or a history of mental illness do not get a licence and are therefore unable to purchase guns legally. Period. No exemption for gun shows.
I now await for more of why “That won’t work here”.
I, for one, like to collect hand grenades. Fully armed, completely functional hand grenades. What could possibly go wrong? They are merely inanimate objects.
Police having the right to enter your house to check that your firearms are stored properly would definitely be a slight sticking point in the US.
And a history of mental illness check is great, but what if the person has no history?
If the parents of the CT murderer had their firearm safely locked away then these murders would not have happened, at least not with a firearm.
And you haven’t addressed what happens to all the millions of existing firearms.