On the other hand, recording spanking, fisting or female ejaculation is illegal, so I'm underwhelmed by your advanced morality and personal freedom.
Oh, I agree completely. I'm not some nationalistic asshole who thinks that the UK can never do anything wrong; there are LOADS of things that are laws over here that I disagree with strongly,
so I'm not trying to suggest that we're just outright superior to everybody else. There are areas we're better at and certain areas we're worse at...I was more talking in terms of attitudes towards certain things. But then, that might just be my immediate area. *shrug*
I should also point out that homosexuality is downright trendy in the US.
In some areas. In other areas, homosexuals have to fear for their lives. The UK - mostly, since there are outlying areas where things are still a bit backwards - people don't really give a shit. At least in my area. Again, I can only talk from direct experience for the places that I've actually been.
Slippery slope fallacy, but yeah. Our butter knives aren't being threatened.
See, I originally typed that, and then thought that the SMF fitted better. Shoulda gone with my gut there.
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.
I would argue that writing it down on a bit of paper doesn't automatically make it a Right, but point taken and conceded. I don't necessarily think the owning of a deadly weapon should be considered a Right - I think it should be considered a privilege that only people who have show than they can be trusted get granted, rather than something that everybody is entitled to - but at the moment in the USA, it is
a right, so, point conceded.
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.
Saying that you're not allowed a firearm - for example - isn't taking away your right to self defence. I don't own a firearm, and if somebody broke into my house I am perfectly capable of defending myself. Ok, English laws are a bit squiffy in that regards in that under certain circumstances the burglar could sue you if you hit them (which is bullshit), but the point still stands that if you're not allowed a handgun, nobody is saying you're not allowed to defend yourself...they're just saying that you're not allowed a dangerous, easily used, often fatal weapon. Nobody is going to suggest that a baseball bat, for example, is as dangerous as an automatic machine pistol.
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).
And if guns were banned, the attacker wouldn't have a gun either, most likely. Just saying. There are ways of protecting yourself that don't necessarily involve lethal force. This person broke into your house to steal something...I think it's a bit extreme to shoot and kill him. Sometimes it will happen, of course, but there ways to incapacitate somebody without shooting them down.
Does your fear incited by the media frenzy over a few isolated incidents trump their right to protection?
First, anger and disgust, not fear.
Second, shootings are hardly isolated incidents in the USA. Every year in the USA, about 30 - 35,000 people die from gun violence. That's about 2,708 per month. America has a mass shooting at least once every couple of months...it's hardly an isolated incident.
We sure do.
Well....I'm sorry, but when trying to justify something to me, saying "It's in the constitution" as your main argument won't win me over, since you have to convince me that the Constitution is right
to include it.
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.
I never said you weren't; that was in response to the claim that violent crime increased immediately following the gun ban. Crime rates in the Western World are dropping, I'm just saying that gun violence is much higher in the States than most other 1st World Countries.
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.
Well, this is true. The problem is, the guns should be taken away from certain people, and certain types definitely need to be regulated or outright banned. I mean, UK citizens are allowed shotguns and hunting rifles and whatnot if they have a licence, we're just not allowed handguns and we're not allowed to carry loaded weapons out in the streets. And lo and behold, gun crime is almost non-existent in the UK. However, I doubt people would accept handguns being taken away from them and only being allowed rifles and shotguns in The States, alas.
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.
Well, it's a sticky subject to be sure, but I'm more than willing to say "look, I think guns should be mostly banned outright, but that isn't gonna happen, so how do we meet halfway?" The problem is that a lot of people seem to be unwilling to budge from their "The government isn't gonna take my guns away from me!" stance, and a lot of people seem to hold the opinion that any attempt at regulation is infringing on their rights, which makes the discussion instantly a lot more difficult. I mean....apologies if I'm misrepresenting or misunderstanding your position, Tairis, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity, but you seem to be opposed to ANY kind of regulation regardless of what is suggested. And that's - to me, at least - the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and declaring that there's no problem and no reason to tighten gun laws. Again, sorry if that isn't your position, but that's what I've inferred from what you've said to me thus far. *shrug*