At the risk of incurring the wrath of people who would rather talk about bombs, when the OP was guns; you’re comparing chalk and cheese.
Reason? We all (I hope) accept that bombs are used by a tiny minority of people to achieve ends which they feel won’t be achieved by any other means. They are not ‘law-abiding citizens’ and as such should be dealt with using the full force of law.
The difference, and I hope that this isn’t insulting or cliched, is that in the UK you cannot under most circumstances own a gun, in the US, broadly you can.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I have no problem with people in the US owning guns. I understand it’s your right and that as a UK citizen I have no bearing on the debate.
We don’t have a history of gun-owning here, and so I suspect I find it much easier to come to terms with the idea of gun-control - in the main never had them, don’t want them, won’t bleat because I can’t have them.
Bottom line is that you’re welcome to them, but I’m glad that (probably through historical accident as much as anything else) we’re not interested.
I don’t think some of these points have been made before, at least not by me.
May I respectfully submit that we clarify that the “US” has not been helping them do so, rather “violence-minded or deluded individuals and organizations within the US” have been doing so instead?
Nothing But Net - there is a difference. We do not have a situation like Northern Ireland here, and haven’t had a similar one since…maybe before the Civil War? Without debating the rightness or wrongness of the occupation of N.I., a situation where a populace feels that they are occupied by a hostile foreign power, that has taken part of their homeland and tried to impose new laws, religions, etc upon it, is a very violent and volatile situation to be set up in. The mafia, the Klan, et al are not parallels to this situation.
To the OP: Your post is truly sad and tragic, and I am very sorry for your loss. I can imagine the same sort of situation happening with my Ex, as she also had a patient die needlessly through a tragic accident. As long as human beings are evil, and as long as people are stupid and careless, tragic accidents will continue to happen. Part of the “rich tapestry of life”, I guess.
I guess that I am having trouble seeing what is getting all the dander up here. Psychobunny said she/he wants idiotic gun owners to lock them up or get rid of them. Of course some people read it as “all gun owners are idiots and should get rid of their guns”. My feeling here is that psychobunny, being a doctor and all, is probably intelligent enough to write a statement that conveys what she/he is thinking.
Agreed, but with one tiny exception (particularly about debating the rightness or wrongness): some of the populace. There seems to be as much violence (within NI at least) by those who don’t appear to want the British out.
Again, agreed. And I’m sorry for the hijack, psychobunny.
Xerxes, you seem oblivious to hate crimes involving bombs by groups other than the IRA & their splinter groups. Or have you forgotten about this one or these?
So explain how come firearms related crimes have increased since the ban was passed according to the official report.
If we don’t have a history of gun owning & we’re not interested in owning guns, why did they need banning? Why did anyone actually own any to be removed?
Of course I’m not oblivious. I just don’t see any correlation between them and the OP. I find them just as repugnant as you do.
I’ve read the report. I note that while the number of handgun firearm offences has gone up a little since 98, it is still lower than the '93 figure. Without doing some math on the real figures, I cannot comment on whether this is a blip or a change in the underlying trend. Note that during the 98-00 the number of shotgun offences was broadly the same, and again was significantly lower than the high in 93.
You might also take into account your report’s definition of a firearm offence:
Your own report gives some insight here.
All that said, are you trying to say that you’d rather not have a ban? Are you inferring that in fact it is having an inverse effect?
Anthracite - I agree. And I agree with Mattk’s small correction as well. It’s not as simple a case as people like Nothing but Net seem to think it is (go in, guns blazing, and sort them out would not work for pretty obvious reasons), as some want the English to stay and some want us out, and both are using violence to demand it! But your point is both noted and correct.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by psychobunny *
I just wish all these idiotic gun owners would lock up their guns or better yet get rid of them entirely, and I wish that teenage boys were not so damn stupid!
[QUOTE] [knee jerk]
How dare you condemn all teenage boys like that! I invite you to kiss my formely teenage boy ass! I don’t care how upset you may be–stereotyping in that manner is horseshit, regardless of what group you are trying to apply it to. Would it make you feel better if an adult had gotten shot in the head? Preferably the parent of the teenage boy?
Yeah, it sure sucks that a kid got shot in the head. But the second you use that to justify punishing SPOOFE, a teenage boy, you’re gonna get a talkin’-to. But despite the emotional loss and pain, despite your immediate desire to rid the world of the perceived evil, please take a nice, calming breath and realize that this was NOT the fault of teenage boys, nor the parents of teenage boys, nor teenage boy anything-else-ers. This was the fault of a single 15-year-old boy who, horribly, messed up. Don’t allow your emotions to drum up hatred against those teenage boys who have committed no wrong.
You hate teenage boys? Great, I hate doctors.
[/knee jerk]
Sheesh, people, lighten up. psychobunny is not leading an ATF strike force to break smash in your windows and take your toys away from you. Trivializing what happened to her patient is not helping your cause.
I would define it as totally fucking missing the fact that the reply was copied word for word from a previous post, and then replying to it as if it were serious.
I know better than to post before my morning coffee.
That being said…
I’m all for private gun ownership and keeping our 2nd Amendment rights, BUT many gun owners need to display a higher level of responsibility in storing their guns, particularly when there is even a remote chance that a child can get their hands on them.
The OP was about irresponsible gun owners.
Responsible gun owners store their weapons and ammunition in a secure location, such as a safe. Responsible gun owners teach their children the dangers of guns and that guns are not toys. I believe that most of the tragedies that happen would be prevented if more gun owners were more responsible.
[QUOTEI’m all for private gun ownership and keeping our 2nd Amendment rights[/QUOTE]
Yes… since the second amendment dosen’t protect the right of the general populace to own guns, only that of a well trained and maintained malitia… so unless we all join the national guard, I guess all these gun owners are SOL. Owning a gun isn’t a RIGHT after all, it a loophole that has become a privelage protected by high powered groups like the NRA.
As for the child dying, my sympatheies… he sounded like a good kid. Hopefully his younger friend will learn something from this, so it won’t be a meaningless death.
On a related note… anybody like the song “.38 Special” by Skynard?
NPavelka, I should send you a bill for the new keyboard I will have to buy from snorting iced tea all over it, and through my nose too. That’s some of the funniest crap I have read since that last time I perused HCI’s web page.
As for the OP, that is a terrible shame, and one of which I’m sure the 15 year old and his parents will carry with them the rest of their lives.
This is so wrong. I can’t believe how incredibly misinformed you are. About 15 minutes of reading will clear up this misconception you hold. Try The Federalist #29. And the NRA has only been around for about 130 years now, we’ve had a 2nd amendment right since, well, time immemorial. You see, the Bill of Rights doesn’t actually grant U.S. citizens their rights; it is simply a device to remind the government what pre-existing rights we hold. You have the completely wrong idea of the nature of our Republic. The Constitution is the framework that tells the government what the people will allow it to do for them, not, as you seem to think, what the government will allow the people to do. Please read a history book.
