Was resolved to trawl through all the responses before I wrote mine...but then noticed there are 20 pages. So, regardless of repeating, here we go.
Greater gun control in the states is necessary...really. I know Americans love to bleat about their right to bear arms, and their rights to defend themselves and all that. But let's look at the problem with a bit less of a crazy NRA attitude. From what I've seen, the pro-gun camp hates it when the gun control camp uses such incidents as Columbine, Aurora etc to justify nationwide gun control. They would argue that such a small number of incidents does not warrant gun control, because it remains the tiny minority of people who perpetrate them.
To this argument I would reply that when you think about it, just about ALL crime is committed by a minority of people. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws or restrictions in place to curb the activities of that minority. Just as an example, it has become quite normal for shops to ask people to remove baseball caps, open up long coats etc, because when people are intending to steal things, they may well use such items to help them. Now, using pro-gun logic, these rules are unfair because it's only the minority of people who steal things. But from another perspective, the business owner has reason to be afraid that ANYONE with a long coat or baseball cap MIGHT do the same, so he asks them to remove them as a sign that they won't do that.
Before pro-gun people start exploding, I'm aware the two examples are hardly alike in reality, but I think the principle is similar. It only took one such shooting massacre for the UK to get its act together and create more gun control. Now, those in favour of gun control who have any sense will also concede that gun control laws do not eliminate the problem entirely, but if there's any chance that they will help the problem, then isn't it our responsibility to ensure that something gets done?
With regards to the arguments to do with the 2nd amendment - the right to bear arms. This is a classic pro-gun argument, and at first glance seems hard to refute. But let's really tear it apart today, shall we? First of all, the second amendment while being constitutional, is NOT unlimited. This is what the Supreme Court also has ruled in the past. It talks about the right to bear "arms", but does that mean you can get your hands on nuclear materials or anti-tank weapons? Could you install anti-aircraft missiles in your backyard to shoot down the neighbours snot-nosed kids' kite down? No of course not. The point is, the right is still LIMITED. Think about what weapons were available at the time of its writing. Flintlock muskets and pistol versions of the same thing. But also, "arms" stretches to pitchforks, clubs, and even boards with nails in them (knew I could get a Simpsons reference in there without being too obvious)
So, this being so, isn't it reasonable and constitutional to introduce laws to severely limit or even ban the practice of selling assault rifles, automatic weapons or other highly unnecessary and dangerous equipment? It seems to me that Obama was right to call such an idea "common sense". There's no way anyone can justify "needing" an M16 or similar weapon in their home.
Another thing to add to this discussion, would be the fact that the pro-gun camp loves to demonize the gun control people as "trying to take away their right to a gun" - the fact is that it is simply not true. Gun control is not necessarily about taking away everyone's guns, but putting more rules in place to help ensure that the wrong people don't get their hands on them. And isn't that perfectly reasonable? If you are as rational, responsible and reasonable as you say you are, then what have you to really fear? You may wait a little longer but you WILL get your gun at the end of it, won't you? So whose rights are really being infringed upon?
No system of control is ever going to be perfect The only way to really ensure no gun crime is to go the way of China and simply remove all guns (and even realistic replicas) from the general public altogether. There are just literally NO GUNS anywhere in China, noone sells them, no one owns them...except SOME people in rural areas I think, ones who are at risk of being attacked by wild animals or something, I'm not entirely sure, it's a big country. But even that system is not 100% perfect - I believe mafia groups can still get their hands on them...but whatever the case, I've never heard of a shooting incident in Beijing....since 1989 (oooo, bad taste, sorry)
But let's face it, short of a mega-revolution, the States will never go that way, and IMO it shouldn't. It would go against so many aspects of their culture, heritage and beliefs. But at the same time, introducing constitutionally sound gun control is absolutely reasonable, and frankly necessary. How many more massacres will the united states tolerate before it actually DOES something.
Greater gun control in the states is necessary...really. I know Americans love to bleat about their right to bear arms, and their rights to defend themselves and all that. But let's look at the problem with a bit less of a crazy NRA attitude. From what I've seen, the pro-gun camp hates it when the gun control camp uses such incidents as Columbine, Aurora etc to justify nationwide gun control. They would argue that such a small number of incidents does not warrant gun control, because it remains the tiny minority of people who perpetrate them.
To this argument I would reply that when you think about it, just about ALL crime is committed by a minority of people. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws or restrictions in place to curb the activities of that minority. Just as an example, it has become quite normal for shops to ask people to remove baseball caps, open up long coats etc, because when people are intending to steal things, they may well use such items to help them. Now, using pro-gun logic, these rules are unfair because it's only the minority of people who steal things. But from another perspective, the business owner has reason to be afraid that ANYONE with a long coat or baseball cap MIGHT do the same, so he asks them to remove them as a sign that they won't do that.
Before pro-gun people start exploding, I'm aware the two examples are hardly alike in reality, but I think the principle is similar. It only took one such shooting massacre for the UK to get its act together and create more gun control. Now, those in favour of gun control who have any sense will also concede that gun control laws do not eliminate the problem entirely, but if there's any chance that they will help the problem, then isn't it our responsibility to ensure that something gets done?
With regards to the arguments to do with the 2nd amendment - the right to bear arms. This is a classic pro-gun argument, and at first glance seems hard to refute. But let's really tear it apart today, shall we? First of all, the second amendment while being constitutional, is NOT unlimited. This is what the Supreme Court also has ruled in the past. It talks about the right to bear "arms", but does that mean you can get your hands on nuclear materials or anti-tank weapons? Could you install anti-aircraft missiles in your backyard to shoot down the neighbours snot-nosed kids' kite down? No of course not. The point is, the right is still LIMITED. Think about what weapons were available at the time of its writing. Flintlock muskets and pistol versions of the same thing. But also, "arms" stretches to pitchforks, clubs, and even boards with nails in them (knew I could get a Simpsons reference in there without being too obvious)
So, this being so, isn't it reasonable and constitutional to introduce laws to severely limit or even ban the practice of selling assault rifles, automatic weapons or other highly unnecessary and dangerous equipment? It seems to me that Obama was right to call such an idea "common sense". There's no way anyone can justify "needing" an M16 or similar weapon in their home.
Another thing to add to this discussion, would be the fact that the pro-gun camp loves to demonize the gun control people as "trying to take away their right to a gun" - the fact is that it is simply not true. Gun control is not necessarily about taking away everyone's guns, but putting more rules in place to help ensure that the wrong people don't get their hands on them. And isn't that perfectly reasonable? If you are as rational, responsible and reasonable as you say you are, then what have you to really fear? You may wait a little longer but you WILL get your gun at the end of it, won't you? So whose rights are really being infringed upon?
No system of control is ever going to be perfect The only way to really ensure no gun crime is to go the way of China and simply remove all guns (and even realistic replicas) from the general public altogether. There are just literally NO GUNS anywhere in China, noone sells them, no one owns them...except SOME people in rural areas I think, ones who are at risk of being attacked by wild animals or something, I'm not entirely sure, it's a big country. But even that system is not 100% perfect - I believe mafia groups can still get their hands on them...but whatever the case, I've never heard of a shooting incident in Beijing....since 1989 (oooo, bad taste, sorry)
But let's face it, short of a mega-revolution, the States will never go that way, and IMO it shouldn't. It would go against so many aspects of their culture, heritage and beliefs. But at the same time, introducing constitutionally sound gun control is absolutely reasonable, and frankly necessary. How many more massacres will the united states tolerate before it actually DOES something.
