| |
In lugnet.loc.pt, James Trobaugh writes:
> 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.
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 citizens will respect such ban. That is
true for today, but it will be more difficult for potencial criminals to
acquire a handgun legally in the future, thus deterring most of them right
there. The important here is not *confiscate*, it is *not to sell* (or maybe
*not to produce*...)
That detail about Olympic shooters is something the British parliament could
vote as an exception. I am sure the army can target practice in Britain, and
they have more than mere handguns; why not registered Olympic shooters?
To be honest, I can only speak for my own country, where firearms have
always had restrictions.
That helped prevent a civil war in the mid 70's, after we have overthrown a
dicator *without a single shot*, in a nationwide revolution. Noone had arms,
so everyone had to accept that new stuff called "democracy".
And when the communists took over (or almost), they couldn't easily arm
militias and were therefor forced to surrender power to the democrats.
During some 2 years of turmoil and unrest, maybe less than 50 people were
killed, and most in result of home-made bombs.
We have also had a 13-years war, in three afican colonies, which marked very
profoundly a whole generation. Many of those who came back became pacifists,
and I believe a non-violent environment has helped them to forget the war
and remain sain. Besides, even if they "snapped" they would not have easy
access to guns, thus being less dangerous to us all.
Most men here know how to use a weapon, because army training was mandatory
just 5 years ago. I know how to use one, and I have not served at the army.
But *who* needs a gun here? Violent crime is low, most murders have
"passional motives" and society is relatively homogenous (not so many rich
people; we are all poor for US standards).
In the eyes of the portuguese society it seems rather strange the the US
have such a liberal firearms policy. We do hear about all those
school-shootings, Waco-kind messes, LA riots... to most of us, this sort of
stuff would never happen if there were a more restrictive law in the
"states" (as for gun control).
Then again, the portuguese society *does not* elect the American executive,
nor it wants to. So we merrily see you shooting each other as we eat dinner,
and gently nod our heads in disaproval. It is your country, why shoud WE care?
Or... *should* we care? I will surely feel more comfortable knowing you have
had the chance to vote for gun control. It is still the best way of knowing
what you all think.
I would like to know your opinion about this fact: In Switzerland it is
mandatory (I think) to own a rifle, but people don't go around in a killing
spree; the swiss have however a very large suicide rate, mostly commited
with their own rifles. This may seem supportive to the statement that
"owning a gun will not make me a criminal", but it may make you a dead man,
if you are a swiss. In any case, someone DIES. One too many, I say.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
