whilst I agree that the UK socially is somewhat more "advanced" than the USA - for example, homosexuality isn't a big issue over here in most areas, the country is rather more secular and Creationism is largely a dead duck over here
On the other hand, recording spanking, fisting or female ejaculation is illegal
, so I'm underwhelmed by your advanced morality and personal freedom.
I should also point out that homosexuality is downright trendy
in the US.
Plus, that picture is a complete and utter strawman.
Slippery slope fallacy, but yeah. Our butter knives aren't being threatened.
there are a lot of people who think it's their "right" to own a deadly weapon.
Just to clarify for you, because your constant use of quotes makes you look a bit "silly": it is not thought
to be a right, it very specifically is one, as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, one of the ten that form the Bill of Rights. Whether it should remain a right, and to what extent, is a valid question. But talking about the "right" to own a gun sounds as ridiculous as talking about "mass shootings" instead of mass shootings.
Their right not to be shot by a madman trumps your right to have a cool, shiny toy, and if tighter gun control can save their lives - which it can - I don't see a good reason not to tighten gun laws.
...It seems that your primary argument is "It's mah right!"
This is the point where you're going to lose every gun supporter, because you very obviously don't see the other side of the argument. It is not a right to a toy; it is a right to self defense
. You will have a much better conversation
about the issue if you start using that line instead. I do not own a toy: a own a way to defend myself and my family from someone else with a gun (or a knife, or a stick). Does your fear incited by the media frenzy over a few isolated incidents trump their right to protection?
And if you don't trust your government to protect you....well, I'm sorry.
Well, as I said....I don't care what your constitution says.
We sure do.
At least in the UK, murder rates are at their lowest since 1978
Super! We're doing great over here, too. The violent crime rate has halved in the last twenty years. In schools, too: I never feared being shot in high school, but as it turns out my chances were twice what they are today.
Of course, now it's middle class white kids.
If it keeps people safe and happy and does more good than harm, I don't see why we shouldn't try and push for tighter gun control in the USA.
limit access to certain types of weapons, etc etc.
Well, for instance, banning 'certain types of weapons' is the most common call for legislation, primarily aimed at automatic weapons (or firearms that people can't distinguish from them). Automatic weapons are available to the public, but are highly regulated; there are about 240,000 licensed. Since 1938 (when restrictions began) legal ones have killed two people in the US. That's not per-year: that's total
. I mentioned before that vending machines are more dangerous.
So basically, automatic weapons are a shining example that regulation WORKS. We can do it, and we can make it safe. The response to that success is not, however, the promised 'nobody wants to take away your gun': it's very much the opposite.
A similar situation arises with assault weapons, which are not particularly favored by criminals nor widely used in killings or violent crime.
I'm very pro-regulation. But I'm also pro-gun ownership, and it's very hard to claim that any
attempts at regulation in the last 30 years have been focused on reducing violent crime while ensuring responsible citizens maintain a right to self defense.