| |
In lugnet.loc.pt, James Trobaugh writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.pt, James Trobaugh writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: • <large snippage>>>
> > > > 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*?
>
> Well since they call it an "increase", I would take that as meaning "more".
Yes, more *than previously*, not *than expected*. Is it possible that it
would have been a 80% (or anything over 40%) increase in case there were NO
restrictions on weaponry?
Crime has a natural tendency to rise, in any situation - maybe because
population also increases, or social instability, or whatever causes crime.
So my point is *will that increase be bigger if gun-possession is
liberalized?* - It may be, and it may be not. It is like the Schrödinger's
cat experiment, the cat dies and doesn't die at the same time, there is no
way to say what occurrs *for sure*. Howevwer, IMHO the increase in the
british crime rate would have been bigger if there were no restrictions.
> > 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?
>
>
> Well why not just register everyone? Don't just single out Olympic shooters,
> make all responsible gun owners have access to being registered.
Why not register as an Olyimpic shooter, instead? I am pretty sure you do
not intend to go around shooting anything other than a target, and many gun
owners like to use their pieces for target practice only - not crime, not
even personal protection. A simple way to train concentration, maybe relax.
So if they just like to shoot targets, why not do so in shooting ranges?
Guns are obviously allowed there... and as long as they stay there (question
of trust, here; you trust someone for this control), it is highly unlikely
they are used for crime. This way you can shoot safely, and remain safe
after you have shot.
> > 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.
>
> Well to tell ya the truth, I don't see a problem. Yes it's sad that people
> have decided to take their own lives; but I feel as long as they're not
> infringing on other peoples rights or lives then I don't have a problem with it.
In a way, they do not infringe MY or YOUR rights. But they do kill
themselves, infringing their OWN right to live. That is something they
probably wouldn't do if there was not such an easy acsess to rifles in
Switzerland. You are less likely to kill yourself if you can't do it easily
- I speak out of personal experience here.
Of course I am not any sort of religious "no suicide, it's a sin" kind of
person. I am not religious, period. But I do believe in the right to live.
And any society is endangering that right when it allows citizens to kill
themselves so easily, by placing arms in their hands.
IMO, you are being somehow selfish when you claim you "have no problem with
it". Why not trying to save someone's life instead of looking the other way?
It is highly rewarding, or so say those who have done it.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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
|
|
|
|
