A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Totally agree. The drive-bys get ignored unless an innocent bystander is involved. Time to bring back public hangings to those clearly guilty of murder.
OT: Prayers to those in Charleston
- Thread starter huskerfan830
- Start date
I normally agree with him and, while I appreciate his tone here, I feel his argument about terrorism is wrong. This is not like 9/11. There is not a specific group that is training people to go kill others. Yes, there is hatred...yes there is someone who is off-kilter...but this is different from foreign terrorists committing acts of terror.
Jay, I don't want to live in a country where only government agents carry guns.
Me too...but I would like it even better if our murder rate with guns was in line with the UK's.
The numbers cited by Beav are all deaths with guns. If we only look at the murder rate with guns, you find that over the last ten years we are 70 times more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. than in the UK...not twice as likely...not five times as likely...70 times as likely.
Here is a chart from the last year stats were available...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_gun_homicide/10,66,69,194
Last edited:
Beav also pointed out Jamaica, which is a hot mess. Could it be that people who live in the UK and Australia are just not violent, hateful people? Switzerland is fairly liberal on their gun policies and have very few gun crimes per year. Why do some states in the United States have very low gun deaths and others can't even look at each other without capping somebody in the ass?
Jamaica is far worse...no question. I would guess places like Columbia, Mexico, and other South American countries might be the same. I was thinking of what we would call the West and first world countries. And, yes, this is an issue that is not only about gun laws but is an issue of violence in the culture.
P.S. The only culture that I can think of that has made incredible progress in overcoming an ethic of violence is Australia.
P.S. The only culture that I can think of that has made incredible progress in overcoming an ethic of violence is Australia.
Looking up online, it appears Australia is 92% White and 7% Asian. To my knowledge, there has not been any major bad blood between White and Asian people, so nearly 99% have no past issues with each other. That could play into why there is literally no hate there. America is a much more diverse melting pot than most other countries, which larger percentages of ethnics groups with bad blood. I would guess - but have not researched - that U.S. States and Cites that have more diversity and more hostile. Not promoting segregation by any stretch of the imagination, but that could play a part in the U.S. vs AUS/UK.
All good points. We do have a much different history. It is interesting to note that Australia as we know it started out with a crazy population. Most people there were criminals in England. They were sent there to remove them from the English population. (Obviously there have been tons of immigrants since then.) They have a history of extreme violence. They make our Wild West look tame. But somehow they have over come that history...perhaps because of the issues you describe.
I grew up hunting pheasants in Nebraska, and hunted doves in Louisiana. NRA marksman award as a Boy Scout. Most of our family members are or have been hunters. I've still got my shotgun. You want suggestions:
1. Safety locks on all guns; can't be sold without one. Phase in modification requirements for all guns;
2. No license, then no gun;
3. License requires criminal and mental health background checks;
4. Magazines limited to 12 rounds;
5. All guns registered and traceable. You buy it, you're responsible for it--until lawfully sold
6. Gun owners required to have liability insurance for damage caused by the weapon.
7. Parents criminally responsible for their minor child's criminal conduct with a weapon.
8. All bullets bear serial numbers.
The NRA has blood on its hands. I dropped my membership years ago and urge others to do the same. This continued massacre of our children is insane. Those who say we can't do anything are dupes of the corporate interests and NRA.
1. Safety locks on all guns; can't be sold without one. Phase in modification requirements for all guns;
2. No license, then no gun;
3. License requires criminal and mental health background checks;
4. Magazines limited to 12 rounds;
5. All guns registered and traceable. You buy it, you're responsible for it--until lawfully sold
6. Gun owners required to have liability insurance for damage caused by the weapon.
7. Parents criminally responsible for their minor child's criminal conduct with a weapon.
8. All bullets bear serial numbers.
The NRA has blood on its hands. I dropped my membership years ago and urge others to do the same. This continued massacre of our children is insane. Those who say we can't do anything are dupes of the corporate interests and NRA.
I would bet that if you ask those questions in the abstract all of those ideas would get 80-90% support of the public at large. They are all absolute commonsense solutions that would reduce a ton of deaths while not inconveniencing anyone who wanted or needed a gun for sporting or protection purposes. Yes, there would still be gun-related crimes committed and some criminals would obtain these guns notwithstanding the change in law, but it would undeniably HELP fix the terrible problem we have with guns in this country.
Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law in 1993 that lasted for 10 years. Virtually every independent study conducted came to the conclusion that it had no noticeable affect on gun crime. No reason to repeat this failure. I, for one, hate the idea of infringing on basic rights just for the sake of doing something that simply won't work. Plenty of blood has been shed to protect my rights, which includes gun ownership. I hate the idea of watering down the freedom so my others have died to give me. Plenty of laws exist. The answer is education, not legislation.
You're kidding, right? This has nothing to do with "watering down" constitutional rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't defame people. And you can place all sorts of restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion. But you can't legislate re: weapons? Get real. Bush/Congress allowing the assault weapons ban to expire was a huge blunder. They put our police and citizens at needless risk.
We will never be able to legislate these things away. They will always happen. Earth is not Heaven, and cannot have a Utopia. It's fact.
And how do we know that some things aren't working? I mean, there have probably been people who have thought about doing this that didn't go through with it. We can't hear those stories or see those stats, though.
And please stop with the words "common sense" to describe your proposed reforms. I hate that term--they are common sense to YOU, don't act smarter than others. "common sense" to me would be to understand that the 2nd Amendment was established for a far more important reason than simply "sport and hunting" or even home protection from intruders.
Also, while Britain has a lower rate, let's look at what happened in London after they banned numerous weapons. Gun crime went up over 100 percent from where it was before. Literally.
Sad story. Need to change society, one well-parented child at a time.
And how do we know that some things aren't working? I mean, there have probably been people who have thought about doing this that didn't go through with it. We can't hear those stories or see those stats, though.
And please stop with the words "common sense" to describe your proposed reforms. I hate that term--they are common sense to YOU, don't act smarter than others. "common sense" to me would be to understand that the 2nd Amendment was established for a far more important reason than simply "sport and hunting" or even home protection from intruders.
Also, while Britain has a lower rate, let's look at what happened in London after they banned numerous weapons. Gun crime went up over 100 percent from where it was before. Literally.
Sad story. Need to change society, one well-parented child at a time.
IF the answer is not ever legislation then why is there such an appreciable difference in rates of gun deaths between two countries that are fairly similar in Britain and the U.S? We are 70 times more likely to die of a gun death here in the U.S. That is huge.
Nice play on words there seattle. I'd prefer to say it this way: You can place all sorts of restrictions on a child's right to have a life. I can't believe that a woman's "right" to kill their unborn child has a place of such importance in America. Maybe the whole not valuing life obsession contributes a little to this whole "kill with no remorse" crap we just witnessed.
While there are more gun deaths in America we need to take into account how much gun crime in Britain has gone up since they had massive gun-bans over the past decade. Yes it's still lower than America, but higher than it was before. 400 percent higher after the first few months, and since thing it's been consistently about 35% higher, with a 46% increase in armed robbery since the last big gun restriction.
I think we need to consider this as well. Basically, criminals find it easier to take advantage of the law-abiding populace. Britain's gun behavior compared to America is societal, not a result of gun restrictions.
Seal the borders and we can talk about gun laws. Until the debate is meaningless.
Sweet baby Jesus thank you. I can't understand why people who want to own and do normal things like hunt and trap shoot are usually so spooky about getting on board with having some REAL laws.
There IS a meaningful middle ground between "No legal guns for anyone" and "ALL THE GUNS!!!"
We are already living in the ground between "no legal guns for anyone" and "all the guns". There are numerous guns I cannot legally own. Many of these illegal weapons, however, I could get off the black market if I wanted to break the law.
We have real laws. Like, you know, the whole "no murdering" thing. More legislation will only lead to more legislation because it WON'T WORK. It's the divide and conquer routine. First, get the people to get behind these simple gun laws, they won't work, so then you'll pass more, and more, and finally it will be so hard for any law-abiding person to own a gun that all we'll have them for is trap shooting. Which is not the point of the 2nd amendment. And even after all that, these things will not stop. So what next? I shudder. (Again, I reference London and the increase in gun crime after numerous passed gun laws). So all this "simple, common sense" legislation will do is divide gun owners to conquer them because these laws aren't going to stop the murders, period.
If you want to change the 2nd amendment, there is an amending process. If we can't amend it, then it SHOULDN'T BE. It is supposed to be hard to amend the constitution because if we do it means an overwhelming majority of the nation is on the same page. Until it is amended, you can't take them away.
There's one other thing we all need to remember here: if the government can take away someone else's rights, don't forget that they can turn around and do the same thing to you. You might be okay with limiting 2nd amendment rights, but don't go whining when rights you hold sacred are violated. The more power you give them to do this the more they will do it with other things. Abraham Lincoln stressed this a lot in his day.
Our problems are societal. We don't value life.
We have real laws. Like, you know, the whole "no murdering" thing. More legislation will only lead to more legislation because it WON'T WORK. It's the divide and conquer routine. First, get the people to get behind these simple gun laws, they won't work, so then you'll pass more, and more, and finally it will be so hard for any law-abiding person to own a gun that all we'll have them for is trap shooting. Which is not the point of the 2nd amendment. And even after all that, these things will not stop. So what next? I shudder. (Again, I reference London and the increase in gun crime after numerous passed gun laws). So all this "simple, common sense" legislation will do is divide gun owners to conquer them because these laws aren't going to stop the murders, period.
If you want to change the 2nd amendment, there is an amending process. If we can't amend it, then it SHOULDN'T BE. It is supposed to be hard to amend the constitution because if we do it means an overwhelming majority of the nation is on the same page. Until it is amended, you can't take them away.
There's one other thing we all need to remember here: if the government can take away someone else's rights, don't forget that they can turn around and do the same thing to you. You might be okay with limiting 2nd amendment rights, but don't go whining when rights you hold sacred are violated. The more power you give them to do this the more they will do it with other things. Abraham Lincoln stressed this a lot in his day.
Our problems are societal. We don't value life.
Oh yeah, I meant to ask for the source on those UK stats. I'm a nerd for the stats on this stuff.
The whole thing about "guns are keeping the government at bay" is so preposterous that it's funny to me. You seriously want me to believe that a civil war is going to break out, and the difference maker is going to be a bunch of suburban rambos like you and me carrying the kind of crap you can buy at the store? And we're gonna go out and beat the tanks, drones and stealth jets? REALLY?!?
The people keeping the government in check is about number and unity of the people, not number of guns. It's not about what you have in your (wherever you keep a ton of guns), it's about whether or not you're afraid of them and whether or not you're willing to die. We're as likely to win with rocks and boards with nails through them as we are with a glock when the enemy has jets.
I get that for some people, the entire point of the gun is that they don't feel afraid any more. Of the government, of whoever is gonna break into the house, of whatever. For me, I don't feel afraid, nor do I labor under the illusion that if I carried at all times, it still wouldn't be EASY to kill me. All you have to do is not announce it, and ya got me. I could collect all the coolest, most illicit stuff, and I would still be SO easy to kill if the government's best guys wanted me dead.
The second amendment made perfect sense when we were talking about muzzle-loaders and the U.S. had just gotten done fighting off Britain to gain sovereignty. At that time and for around 130 years thereafter, militia were a relevant and important part of our military strategy. It was rendered obsolete with World War I, IMO. If not then, certainly by the end of WWII.
Everyone needs to just stop it with that nonsense. Warfare has changed, you're not going to beat our army or even our cops. You can only starve them out.
A quick google search will bring up a number of sources, feel free to judge them yourself. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=gun+crime+in+uk+after+gun+ban
Also this article looked at UK government figures and the number of people injured or killed by guns rose 104% in a ten year period between 1998/99 to 2008. During that time there were multiple gun legislation reforms, including a handgun ban. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Here's an article written about the divide and conquer tactic from the BIG BAD NRA OH NO!!!! Just read it because the facts in it are actual, accurate facts. Here is a pull quote, which itself is a pull quote from a government leader in England that looks at a smaller window than the aforementioned 10-year period: "In 2007, opposition Home Secretary David Davis made clear that U.K. gun policies had failed, citing the government’s own figures showing that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than 400 percent since the handgun ban."
All of the dates and figures given in the article can be checked by UK government figures and dates, again easily accessed by the internet. http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/12018/it-will-never-happen-here/
Ok, now the rest...
-No, I don't believe a Civil War is going to break out and I never said there was going to be.
-No civilian army will ever beat the army of the U.S. Never said it would, c'mon.
-I don't live in fear, and I'm not afraid of guns. But when it comes to protecting my family you damn right I'm going to pack heat. I don't need to prove I'm a "tough guy" by voluntarily surrendering my 2nd amendment rights.
Here's what you're misunderstanding: I'm not talking about full-scale war with the government or nation, stop trying to dismiss my views by making me look crazy. The 2nd amendment rights will protect me from the government, however, because as long as I have my pistols, shotguns, and Armalite rifle, no police officer is going to follow the order from some suit-wearing polititian to storm my house or property for any reason. This has been proven by the cop on our message board already.
Let's also not forget that more cops and military personal are supportive of the 2nd amendment than are not. They, too, are not going to go after civilians as long as the populace is armed. And we have to have updated weapons that can match at least some of what an infantry can bring; muzzleloaders can't. Government officials will never be able to get anyone to do their dirty-work for them, whatever it is (the rights being taken don't have to be regarding guns--it could be anything, including property and treasure).
Sound crazy? It is crazy. Because it will never happen in America. Because we have an armed civilian militia at all times. The government isn't going to send in the fighter jets on the public, if they did no one would fly.
Look at every case of every government disarming the people in the last 100 years. They all start the same way: small and then grow. And they all result in one of two things: Government takes away people's rights and even kills people (more than just Hitler btw), or gun crime rates go up. I don't like the thought of either happening, but maybe you do.
I don't blame anyone for having this type of reaction to terrible things such as this. I don't blame civilians for wanting gun control (I will always question and not trust government officials because they have too much power over me for me to not care and blindly trust them). I do, however, feel that those wanting gun control aren't looking at the big picture and are avoiding the obvious: gun laws aren't going to stop murders or mass killings, or even decrease them. Sounds awful, but our world is an awful place. Facts matter more than intent. It's time to rely on fact instead of emotion--something man has never been good with. And time to rely on yourself. Given the choice between the store with a shooter and no concealed carrier and a store with a shooter and 1 or more concealed carrier and I will gladly take the concealed carry option every day of the week.
Also this article looked at UK government figures and the number of people injured or killed by guns rose 104% in a ten year period between 1998/99 to 2008. During that time there were multiple gun legislation reforms, including a handgun ban. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Here's an article written about the divide and conquer tactic from the BIG BAD NRA OH NO!!!! Just read it because the facts in it are actual, accurate facts. Here is a pull quote, which itself is a pull quote from a government leader in England that looks at a smaller window than the aforementioned 10-year period: "In 2007, opposition Home Secretary David Davis made clear that U.K. gun policies had failed, citing the government’s own figures showing that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than 400 percent since the handgun ban."
All of the dates and figures given in the article can be checked by UK government figures and dates, again easily accessed by the internet. http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/12018/it-will-never-happen-here/
Ok, now the rest...
-No, I don't believe a Civil War is going to break out and I never said there was going to be.
-No civilian army will ever beat the army of the U.S. Never said it would, c'mon.
-I don't live in fear, and I'm not afraid of guns. But when it comes to protecting my family you damn right I'm going to pack heat. I don't need to prove I'm a "tough guy" by voluntarily surrendering my 2nd amendment rights.
Here's what you're misunderstanding: I'm not talking about full-scale war with the government or nation, stop trying to dismiss my views by making me look crazy. The 2nd amendment rights will protect me from the government, however, because as long as I have my pistols, shotguns, and Armalite rifle, no police officer is going to follow the order from some suit-wearing polititian to storm my house or property for any reason. This has been proven by the cop on our message board already.
Let's also not forget that more cops and military personal are supportive of the 2nd amendment than are not. They, too, are not going to go after civilians as long as the populace is armed. And we have to have updated weapons that can match at least some of what an infantry can bring; muzzleloaders can't. Government officials will never be able to get anyone to do their dirty-work for them, whatever it is (the rights being taken don't have to be regarding guns--it could be anything, including property and treasure).
Sound crazy? It is crazy. Because it will never happen in America. Because we have an armed civilian militia at all times. The government isn't going to send in the fighter jets on the public, if they did no one would fly.
Look at every case of every government disarming the people in the last 100 years. They all start the same way: small and then grow. And they all result in one of two things: Government takes away people's rights and even kills people (more than just Hitler btw), or gun crime rates go up. I don't like the thought of either happening, but maybe you do.
I don't blame anyone for having this type of reaction to terrible things such as this. I don't blame civilians for wanting gun control (I will always question and not trust government officials because they have too much power over me for me to not care and blindly trust them). I do, however, feel that those wanting gun control aren't looking at the big picture and are avoiding the obvious: gun laws aren't going to stop murders or mass killings, or even decrease them. Sounds awful, but our world is an awful place. Facts matter more than intent. It's time to rely on fact instead of emotion--something man has never been good with. And time to rely on yourself. Given the choice between the store with a shooter and no concealed carrier and a store with a shooter and 1 or more concealed carrier and I will gladly take the concealed carry option every day of the week.
I would start with a few things. These will sound extreme, but understand that you either gotta do the thing or not do the thing. Diddling around with BS like magazine capacity laws but only in some states does NOTHING.
First would be to require licenses for any kind of firearms at all. Let the states do it, but have certain federal standards they must meet. Treat it the way we do driving. You have to pass a written test, eye test and operation test. Who gives the operation test? Maybe it's police, maybe those could be good jobs for the TONS of vets we have who know their way around a weapon and are struggling for work. This would require some time to phase in, obviously. Nobody is grandfathered in.
Second, just like a car, you have to carry liability insurance. It ain't gonna be cheap, the insurance companies will see to that, not the govt. If you want to make a purchase, you need to present valid license and proof of insurance. You're not gonna go out and shoot somebody and that's not fair? Funny, I say the SAME THING about going out and hitting somebody with my car every time I pick up the keys.
Third, just like a car, you need to have a valid registration for each one you own. As somebody suggested above, you should be liable not only for what you do with your gun, but what anyone else does with it. So if you gave one to somebody who isn't supposed to have it, guess what? You're going to prison right along with them. It was stolen? Did you report it stolen?
Fourth, "protection" is no longer a reason you get to cite in choosing your style of gun. You can have hunting guns (long barrel), assuming you meet the above criteria. Yes, sorry, that means no more handguns. Semi-auto, long barrel, low capacity. If you didn't get that buck in 4-8 shots, sorry there Orion, it just wasn't meant to be. Stringent standards can exist to apply for exemptions for certain types of weapons, like if you are routinely faced with bears or something. I dunno.
Fifth, give buyback incentives for people to turn in non-allowed weapons or ones they don't want to permit or insure. You melt down the ones they turn in, which helps reduce supply and goose what it will cost you to try to buy an illegal gun. The average criminal doing armed robberies doesn't exactly have a lot of startup funding. Yes, I'm sorry, you dictate very narrow terms to thousands of gun merchants. Don't cry for them, they will have made a MINT in the run-up between the law passing and enforcement starting.
In this way, people still have the right to bear arms. But we stop acting like that means we just have to give an arsenal to any idiot with a credit card.
Now you may say, "That won't solve it. There will still be guns. There's the black market. There's the ones people don't turn in." That's true. But the price on a "hot" gun skyrockets the day that law goes into effect and you can't buy one at the store any more. And just like with 1957 Chevys, as the years go by, you'll see less and less of the ones you grew up with. As that happens, the death rate goes down.
BUT, this is all a pipe dream, so don't let it scare you.. It's not gonna happen here any time soon. Not without a VERY liberal supermajority, and probably not even then. The NRA has deep pockets and politicians are scared of them. They don't care how many of these happen, they just want to win the next election.
Interesting stuff on the UK. And thank you for providing really good discussion on this. I get all cross-eyed trying bounce between the different names for everything. Gun crime, gun death, gun homicide, all crime, all homicide...
Looks like there definitely was a bounce in the UK and in response they upped their efforts to clear illegal weapons by quite a bit, and now it's dropping again. One of the things that drives me NUTS is trying to find info from a source that is not really pro-gun or anti-gun. They always want to cherry pick stats. This is from a Post article:
"After Britain’s sweeping handgun ban was imposed in 1997, for instance, tens of thousands of weapons were collected from legal owners in exchange for fair market value, cutting off supplies of stolen handguns that ended up in criminal hands and largely forbidding their sale by gun dealers in Britain. Nevertheless, statistics show that gun violence in Britain increased for the next several years.
But starting in 2005 — and following years of anti-gun sweeps by police forces in British cities that made illegal guns far less accessible — gun violence began to ebb. In 2011, England and Wales recorded 7,024 offenses involving firearms, down 37 percent from their peak in 2005. Given that British crime statistics also count fake guns as “firearms,” criminologists say the number of violent crimes involving real guns is likely significantly lower."
Also, I would point out that it sounds WAY more scary to talk about "a 400% increase" than it does to list it like this:
In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is
2011: 0.23
2010: 0.26
2009: 0.24
2008: 0.28
2007: 0.21
2006: 0.35
2005: 0.27
2004: 0.26
2003: 0.27
2002: 0.28
2001: 0.26
2000: 0.40
1999: 0.36
1998: 0.34
1997: 0.32
1996: 0.42
Yes, there's still an uptick there after the handgun ban. But unless the data is flawed, it did not pass the rate from 96, which was before the ban. If you look at a small sliver of our stock market around 2008-2009, I could never convince you to invest. If you zoom out to 50 or 60 years, it looks like a much better idea.
The main reason I don't think any meaningful gun control will pass and stay in the U.S. is we just don't seem to have the stomach for it. It's a long process that can take decades to come to fruition (and no doubt would here). I don't think we've got that kind of patience. If we didn't want to do it after a school full of little kids got shot up, then when would we?
We seem to be rooted in this place of, "Well it wouldn't be perfect, so it's not worth even trying."
My greatest fear is they'd pass something half-assed that was doomed to fail and pisses of both sides, then they walk it back in 2 or 4 years and say, "See? Pointless." Believe it or not, I'd rather they do nothing sorta do something.
Holy cow, Are you drinking today Beav?
First off liability insurance. For what? Why should I have insurance for something that is my right? Ya, lets just let the big insurance companies make more money. That is one of the worst ideas you've ever had. I don't need insurance because I have a conceal & carry permit. Using the car insurance analogy is totally wrong. You do realize that if someone wants to use their car as a weapon they probably won't have insurance. Same as a person tht wants to shoot you. Then your idea of getting rid of all handguns???? Really. The government is chipping away at our rights the way it is. Why let them take away that right. So lets say they take away all handguns. Then they pass a law that rifles should gbe taken away, then they pass a law that you shouldn't be able to have a shotgun since it will do more damage then anything else. See where this leads.
Can't say I have. I'm not much good at drinking any more.
Beware the slippery slope fallacy. Just because one thing happens does not mean the next will. You're too smart to slide into the gun version of "Well if we let (demographic) get married, then I guess we just have to let everyone have sex with sheep too!" No, each thing should be dealt with with its intended purpose in mind. What makes rifles and shotguns different is that you have a very solid argument that they're sporting weapons. If we're being honest, handguns aren't for pheasant season or even for deer season.
So if you wanna hunt, hunt. Get your permits and whatever, go hunt, God bless. Have fun. If you hear the back door kicked in at 3:30 a.m. that shotgun should do ya just fine for whoever is down there.
I know we'll get very picky about what "infringed" means in terms of the 2nd Amendment (and let's just take a moment to remember it's an amendment and others have been made and repealed since it was written), but what I'm proposing does not take away the right to bear arms. It's already infringed. There are already arms you can't keep or bear legally. So why the fuss over assault rifles, clip sizes or handguns?
I don't follow what your counterargument is about insurance. Yes, some people currently do not carry liability insurance and that's illegal. Should we do away with that, then?
As I said, don't worry, I'm just thinking thoughts and none of this will actually happen.
By this logic, why shouldn't I be allowed to own my own nuclear weapon?
I think the insurance idea makes absolute perfect sense. Whether you support a change in our gun law or not, it's beyond debate that every year there are hundreds, if not thousands, of accidental gun injuries or deaths. Why shouldn't we recognize that reality and do what we can to ensure that the inevitable victims of gun accidents have recourse? If there's truly nothing to worry about, then the premiums should be next to nothing if we trust the marketplace to dictate things.
No, and it really isn't the same logic. At all.
Explain this logic: Obama and numerous senators want "gun control", but their children go to schools protected by numerous people with guns. Makes sense. I thought guns were bad.
But I suppose their kids are more important than ours and we don't know what's good for us, so we need others to tell us.
You should be able to have a nuclear weapon if we follow the 2nd Amendment as most people want. The 2nd Amendment was about citizens having the same right to weaponry as the gov't. Why would we put restrictions on a person's right to bear "arms"?
The ethnicity of the UK and AUS are similar, the U.S. is different. Lets call a spade a spade. We have two groups that hate each other - Black and White. Find a place where the white and black populations are 50/50 and where gun crime is not high? We have not figured out how to live with each other and taking guns out of people's hand will not solve a hate issue.
