Bruce, there's a reason why the gun is called The Great Equalizer.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
When the constitution was written the Weak (US residents) taking on the Strong state (the British crown) *was* a very real concern. It made sense then, it does't make as much sense now. Unless of course you plan on taking on 'the state' (United states military).
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Indeed. The failure of various American gun-control schemes counts for something, but the relative success abroad counts for quite a bit as well.
Of course, there's also weight in the predictable counter-point: that gun-control isn't everything, and America is generally quite violent, not just in terms of guns.
What success? The UK is an island, in case you didn't notice. Australia is too. It's much easier to prevent the smuggling of contraband (like weapons) into an island than into a country with vast, undefended borders.
The UK is Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, some other pieces, and some of those are partially self-governing (I don't know much about how the Irish Free State works, etc). And then we have the ex-colonies and client states which still consider the Queen their head of state.
Technically true, but this doesn't really address Grishnakh's main point: an island (and it's not unreasonable to treat the UK as an island, all in all) is indeed probably easier to keep things out of. (Forgive the end-of-sentence preposition.)
Grishnakh's argument falls down [slashdot.org] when you compare the USA to France.
Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:1, Insightful)
Bruce, there's a reason why the gun is called The Great Equalizer.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the constitution was written the Weak (US residents) taking on the Strong state (the British crown) *was* a very real concern. It made sense then, it does't make as much sense now. Unless of course you plan on taking on 'the state' (United states military).
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Re: (Score:3)
How many mass shootings has the UK experienced since they banned ownership of handguns?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The failure of various American gun-control schemes counts for something, but the relative success abroad counts for quite a bit as well.
Of course, there's also weight in the predictable counter-point: that gun-control isn't everything, and America is generally quite violent, not just in terms of guns.
Re: (Score:1)
What success? The UK is an island, in case you didn't notice. Australia is too. It's much easier to prevent the smuggling of contraband (like weapons) into an island than into a country with vast, undefended borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:2)
Technically true, but this doesn't really address Grishnakh's main point: an island (and it's not unreasonable to treat the UK as an island, all in all) is indeed probably easier to keep things out of. (Forgive the end-of-sentence preposition.)
Grishnakh's argument falls down [slashdot.org] when you compare the USA to France.