Musketeer said:One of the biggest issues in Constitutional Law today is how the words are interpretted. With the meanings of today or when they were written. The only coorect way, and yes I am right on that, is to interpret it with the word meanigns at the time. If you do not do it that way then nothing is gaurenteed by the Constitution. Those who cannot get laws and ammendments passed saying what they want though have depended on an activist court to redefine words to suit their views. It is a disaster that constantly explodes in our faces when confronted with logic.
Canada does not have the problems of the USA, it also does not have the population density in the areas where our crime is the worst. I also think that Canada may be a little behind the USA in our personal moral decline into self indulgence and importance. Give it time though and you may catch up...
DingBat said:Fair enough. So, if I understand your argument, the constitution is to be interpreted only in the context of 18th century English.
I suppose that's a reasonable position to take, but doesn't it kind of admit that the constitution is going to have problems dealing with any sort of social situation that CAN'T be described in terms of the 18th century?
Perhaps a national debate on a clearer, 21st century friendly ammendment would be in order?
MkH^ said:In Finland you can get everything from .500 S&Ws to folding-stock Kalashnikovs, but you need a reason, be it a hobby or profession. Law enforcement, practical shooting, hunting or precision shooting.
Guns are fun, but owning one shouldn't be a right, but a privilege
Uber_Bob said:I enjoy firing my guns but I believe they arent a birth right.
[-project.rattus-] said:I really start to like this thread (even though I have been named a "militant pacifist" ).
Still, I am not convinced that "more guns" equals "more safety". I regard the USA and Austria as being part of the same cultural zone, with only very slight differences, as both base their values basically on the achievements of the french revolution in 1789. That's why I really can't see the strong american (I know, a generalisation ) need for guns compared to Austria.
Austria is situated at the very rim of "our" culture for millenia (celtic/germanic - roman [and vice versa ], european - slavic, christian - muslim, capitalism - communism, to name a few), and had its fair share of invasions. In the early nineties, we had (allthough for a very short time) battles a few meters away from our national border, when slovenia struggled for independency of yugoslavia, which could have very well leapt over to us, endangering our lives.
Still, a grand part of the population had not the urge to arm themselves facing such a thread. Fighting crimes and armies is the job of the police and the military, and not of my neighbours and myself.
And I think that gun regulation doesn't work in america, because it does only restrict the acquisition of new guns, but does not decrease the amount of guns that are already distributed. So, I guess that regulation would need more than 5 years to really show a readable result.
In Austria, in the mid 90ies, there was found a loophole in our gun regulation legislation, which allowed shotguns to be owned more easily. As a result, we had quite a lot murders and killing sprees with shotguns. The governement quickly banned the trade for them (allthough registered owners could keep them, but they are nor allowed to buy, sell, donate or even hand them down), and within weeks, the problem was solved.
Also, i have found this interesting tables and analysis here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
Basically it says that from all the murders where the relationship between victim and offender were known, about 75% knew each other beforehand. As most murders are carried out with firearms, I think that of there would be a lot less murders if the offenders wouldn't have had easy access to such arms. I assume (judgeing by austrian murders) that most murders happen affectually, and are not outright planned, so if you take the ability to kill someone within a brink of a second, most (not all, I know) will calm to a degree where they don't have the urge to kill someone anymore.
And lastly, I think that as soon as guns are involved, the situation does escalate much more easily. If you would be a robber, or whatsoever, and would try to steal at gunpoint, how would you react, if your victim would draw a gun? I think, I'd shoot first, as my life would be suddenly endangered. And how would you react if he doesn't have a gun, but tries to resist? Unless you're drugged and acting irrationally, a murder would certainly greatly imbalance your risk/effect calculation, so I would rather back off and search an easier victim...
Additionally, only a small part of murders seem to be carried out at such robberies, and I dare say that most of those simply happen BECAUSE the victim has a gun and tries to protect himself (and fails very miserably).
[-project.rattus-] said:I really start to like this thread (even though I have been named a "militant pacifist" ).
Still, I am not convinced that "more guns" equals "more safety". I regard the USA and Austria as being part of the same cultural zone, with only very slight differences, as both base their values basically on the achievements of the french revolution in 1789. That's why I really can't see the strong american (I know, a generalisation ) need for guns compared to Austria.
.......
Still, a grand part of the population had not the urge to arm themselves facing such a thread. Fighting crimes and armies is the job of the police and the military, and not of my neighbours and myself.
And I think that gun regulation doesn't work in america, because it does only restrict the acquisition of new guns, but does not decrease the amount of guns that are already distributed. So, I guess that regulation would need more than 5 years to really show a readable result.
In Austria, in the mid 90ies, there was found a loophole in our gun regulation legislation, which allowed shotguns to be owned more easily. As a result, we had quite a lot murders and killing sprees with shotguns. The governement quickly banned the trade for them (allthough registered owners could keep them, but they are nor allowed to buy, sell, donate or even hand them down), and within weeks, the problem was solved.
Also, i have found this interesting tables and analysis here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
Basically it says that from all the murders where the relationship between victim and offender were known, about 75% knew each other beforehand. As most murders are carried out with firearms, I think that of there would be a lot less murders if the offenders wouldn't have had easy access to such arms. I assume (judgeing by austrian murders) that most murders happen affectually, and are not outright planned, so if you take the ability to kill someone within a brink of a second, most (not all, I know) will calm to a degree where they don't have the urge to kill someone anymore.
And lastly, I think that as soon as guns are involved, the situation does escalate much more easily. If you would be a robber, or whatsoever, and would try to steal at gunpoint, how would you react, if your victim would draw a gun? I think, I'd shoot first, as my life would be suddenly endangered. And how would you react if he doesn't have a gun, but tries to resist? Unless you're drugged and acting irrationally, a murder would certainly greatly imbalance your risk/effect calculation, so I would rather back off and search an easier victim...
Additionally, only a small part of murders seem to be carried out at such robberies, and I dare say that most of those simply happen BECAUSE the victim has a gun and tries to protect himself (and fails very miserably).
and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances.
wikipedia said:The Age of Enlightenment refers to the 18th century in European philosophy, and is often thought of as part of a larger period which includes the Age of Reason. The term also more specifically refers to a historical intellectual movement, "The Enlightenment." This movement advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge. The intellectual leaders of this movement regarded themselves as courageous and elite, and regarded their purpose as leading the world toward progress and out of a long period of doubtful tradition, full of irrationality, superstition, and tyranny (which they believed began during a historical period they called the "Dark Ages"). This movement also provided a framework for the American and French Revolutions, the Latin American independence movement, and the Polish Constitution of May 3, and also led to the rise of capitalism and the birth of socialism, liberalism andfascism.
Lucius said:You guys are turning the argument around. You say 'criminals have guns, we need to defend ourselves'. But allowing guns of any kind is what is giving the criminals the guns in the first place. We have criminals here too, but do you think all these criminals walk around with guns? No. Why not? Because you have to go through a lot of trouble to get one. It is easier and safer to not use a gun.
Increase in UK gun crime? LOL, that is good one. There was hardly any gun crime to begin with, no wonder that it goes up if something happens somewhere. UK gun crime is still nothing compared to US gun crime.
Everybody generalises somewhat, because it would make arguments quite tedious if everything had to be spelled out. With this statement though, you crossed the line from generalisation to racism, which renders your points irrelevant in my eyes.Musketeer said:how many of the law abiding people are properly armed to stand up to a mob of angry Muslim immigrants out for blood?
[-project.rattus-] said:Everybody generalises somewhat, brecaus eit would make arguments quite tedious. With this statement though, you crossed the line from generalisation to racism, which renders your points irrelevant in my eyes.
Musketeer said:I am sorry you feel that way but I only spoke the truth. It was members of that community causing the riots and arsons in France last year. It was members of that group who have commited violence around the world over cartoons in a newspaper. It was memebers of that group who conducted bombings in Spain and the UK.