Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.pt
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:14:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
427 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > It's too complicated to follow all the posts about handguns and automatic
> > weapons, so I'll throw the following idea into the wind. Since America IS a
> > democracy and every individual has an opinion on handguns and automatic
> > weapons, why not put it to a national vote? This IS the land of one man, one
> > vote after all (or one woman, one vote as well).
> >
> > The right to bear arms, as described in our Constitution, was created at a
> > point in history when the only personal firearm was a muzzle loader (musket
> > or rather large pistol). Therefore, since times and technology have changed,
> > I say the right should remain but be narrowed to exclude handguns and
> > automatic weapons for the simple reason (and fact) of their common use in
> > thousands upon thousands of crimes, injuries and killings annually in our
> > country.
> >
> > If it's such an important right and individual freedom in our country, all
> > registered American voters deserve the chance to decide their fate as
> > individuals and as a society. This is about people living and dying, often
> > needlessly, clinging to a believe that deserves serious reconsideration for
> > everyone's well being. I say put it to a national vote and let the people
> > decide, not the politicians and especially not the lobbyists. Let democracy
> > prevail on this matter, as it once did over 200 years ago.
> >
> > Dan
>
> If a non-US citizen is allowed a word in this matter, I'd point out the fact
> that the United States seem to be the only "stable democracy" to have such a
> liberal system for gun-control.
> It is scary that the 3 nations, currently not at war, with the largest ratio
> of violent crimes are the USA, South Africa, and Brazil. In all three you
> can easily acquire guns, both legal and illegal.
> In the opposite end, Europe: heavy restrictions on weaponry, and few violent
> crimes carried out with legal weapons. Most important, a lower ratio of
> violent crimes *at all*.
> I agree with you that the present legal system in your country has a very
> defined historic background. Which *has* changed (noone there is afraid
> North Korea or Lybia will try an invasion...)
> That is why american people pay taxes, and support an army. Or is it not?
> Vote, for your own sake.
>
> Pedro
Pedro,
Looks like some of the other countries are finding out the hard way that
banning private ownership of handguns is not the answer.
In 1997 the British Parliament decided that the private ownership of
handguns in Britain had to be absolutely banned. The law was passed and
the handguns were surrendered. Several years later we find that the ban on
private ownership has brought nothing but trouble. That's the finding of an
independent report that was published last week. The report says that,
since the nationwide ban on handguns went into effect, the number of crimes
committed with firearms has jumped 40 percent.
Think about it. The British government banned large-caliber pistols after
the shootings at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996. But the Labour
Party, after winning the general election in 1997, expanded the ban to
include smaller-caliber pistols as well. The government collected about
160,000 guns from its citizens. According to the London Telegraph, the law
is now so restrictive that British Olympic shooting competitors have to go
abroad to practice, because their target guns are now illegal in their home
country.
British citizens and legislators are learning the hard way that criminals
don't obey firearms laws. Only law-abiding citizens will. The criminals
will hold on to their guns while the government confiscates legally owned guns.
jt
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/15/ngun15.xml
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) You mentioned a 40% increase in crimes using firearms, after the British parliament banned them. Is it not possible such increase had been bigger, instead of smaller, in the event of *no restrictions at all*? Then, you claim only law abiding (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) <large snippage>>> (...) Well since they call it an "increase", I would take that as meaning "more". (...) Well why not just register everyone? Don't just single out Olympic shooters, make all responsible gun owners have access to being (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.loc.pt)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
