• Czech Parliament Approves Citizens’ Right to Bear Arms
    183 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52414083]Lol its that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people argument again' Doesn't stop the fact that guns makes it a hell lot easier to kill someone Please do show me your research evidence[/QUOTE] Lack of ease of use doesnt stop violence.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52415594]Lack of ease of use doesnt stop violence.[/QUOTE] No, but it hinders it to some extent.
[QUOTE=Scot;52415360]And then they got out of the van and started stabbing people. Imagine if they all had guns.[/QUOTE] They did in Paris and killed 150, where guns are pretty well regulated. And it took forever to stop them too. Its a retarded idea to think that criminals wont break laws. [editline]29th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52415598]No, but it hinders it to some extent.[/QUOTE] Ok. So do you still think the solution is to not focus on whats causing the violence, and instead focus on the tools. Because as it stands, 300 million to 1 billion guns exist in the US alone, and the vast majority are not used in crime.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52415600]They did in Paris and killed 150, where guns are pretty well regulated. And it took forever to stop them too. Its a retarded idea to think that criminals wont break laws.[/QUOTE] Do you think the UK terrorists used knives because they thought it would be more convenient than firearms? If they had managed to get their hands on some - which they would have had firearms been widely available in the UK - they would have used them, and they would have killed more people. Yes, France has stringent gun laws. Police also can't stop every weapon from being smuggled, but the fact weapons aren't widespread makes it easier to enforce, and limits availability to criminals.
There is also no direct correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of firearm homicides. [t]https://haruha.ru/qg4uc[/t] Here's a [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/"]table[/URL] by WaPo that has these statistics in more detail. How you want to frame it is up to you.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52415600]Ok. So do you still think the solution is to not focus on whats causing the violence, and instead focus on the tools. Because as it stands, 300 million to 1 billion guns exist in the US alone, and the vast majority are not used in crime.[/QUOTE] In the case of Europe? Yes, focus on the cause of violence rather than advocate for giving out firearms to the populace, as if it would lessen the amount of violence somehow. For the US? I'd say you can focus on several things at the same time. Focusing on the cause of violence reduces the likelihood of violent events occuring, focusing on the availability and efficiency of killing tools reduces the damage caused by such events when they do occur. Both are worth pursuing. However, as I said, widespread availability of weapons is an irreversible phenomenon, because it makes you safer to have a gun when everyone else does. So I'm unsure if further gun control would function there. What I'm sure of is that you shouldn't open Pandora's box in countries that still aren't affected by this phenomenon. It only creates more problems and there's no point to it really. [editline]29th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=JETFIGHTER5;52415636]There is also no direct correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of firearm homicides. [t]https://haruha.ru/qg4uc[/t] Here's a [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/"]table[/URL] by WaPo that has these statistics in more detail. How you want to frame it is up to you.[/QUOTE] Of course there won't be correlation, there are several factors at play here. Gun density is far from the only one.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52414474]When other Canadians act holier than thou towards Americans it makes me ashamed of my country.[/QUOTE] well you shouldn't; it was just a geographical fatality that i was born here also lol edit: [QUOTE=JETFIGHTER5;52415636]There is also no direct correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of firearm homicides. [t]https://haruha.ru/qg4uc[/t] Here's a [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/"]table[/URL] by WaPo that has these statistics in more detail. How you want to frame it is up to you.[/QUOTE] are you for real? remove all third world countries and redo that graph and I bet my ass that the you will see the correlation.
good for the czech, you shouldn't restrict the right of a law-abiding citizen to own an item because you feel like you can't trust your fellow man. freedom vs security and all.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;52416150]well you shouldn't; it was just a geographical fatality that i was born here also lol edit: are you for real? remove all third world countries and redo that graph and I bet my ass that the you will see the correlation.[/QUOTE] According to the graph's source data, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the United states, with 3.2 gun murders per 100,000 people making up 67.5% of murders overall (working backwards produces 4.74 murders per 100,000). Meanwhile, in Switzerland with 45.7 guns per 100 people, there are 45.7 guns per 100 people, or just under 1 gun for every other citizen. They have 0.77 gun murders per 100,000, making up 72.2% of all murders (working backwards produces 1.07 murders per 100,000). then there's Finland, just under the Swiss in terms of density: 45.3 guns per 100 people, but with only 0.45 homicides per 100,000, making up only 19.8% of all homicides (working backwards gives 2.27 murders per 100,000). There is no pattern here. If gun density correlated to gun murder, as you say, then Finland would have slightly fewer murders, and a slightly smaller proportion of gun murders. And yet, only 19.8% of murders were with guns despite having slightly more than half of the gun density of the United States. Switzerland further knocks around by having [I]only 1 murder per 100,000 despite having 1 million more population than Finland, which is under half of Finland's murder rate.[/I] One ass, please. [editline]30th June 2017[/editline] On the topic of the parliament's approval, if the citizens wanted such a thing, then I am happy for them.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52411180]I don't see the problem with responsible gun ownership. Besides, if someone wanted to use a gun illegally, they'd get their hands on one anyways from the black market.[/QUOTE] I think that bearing arms as a right is an abomination. As a privilege, it's A-okay. Misguided idealism is cute, but it doesn't work in practice, and the culture surrounding guns in the States is ample proof of that. No doubt my comment will offend many Americans, but people aren't given a 'right' to drive a car. Guns, as tools that are designed to kill and are arguably more dangerous by far, should be given at least as much consideration. Only those with adequate training who have proven competent and stable should be allowed to own one.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52415650]In the case of Europe? Yes, focus on the cause of violence rather than advocate for giving out firearms to the populace, as if it would lessen the amount of violence somehow. For the US? I'd say you can focus on several things at the same time. Focusing on the cause of violence reduces the likelihood of violent events occuring, focusing on the availability and efficiency of killing tools reduces the damage caused by such events when they do occur. Both are worth pursuing. However, as I said, widespread availability of weapons is an irreversible phenomenon, because it makes you safer to have a gun when everyone else does. So I'm unsure if further gun control would function there. What I'm sure of is that you shouldn't open Pandora's box in countries that still aren't affected by this phenomenon. It only creates more problems and there's no point to it really. [/QUOTE] Never have I said that giving European citizens firearms would suddenly nullify terrorist attacks. My whole point here is that with proper regulation, it won't hurt anything by allowing citizens to have a new hobby. In the US, it's not at all possible to limit availability of firearms, or even reduce their efficacy, theres just far too many. Even if you do it won't solve or start to solve the problem with gun crime in the US. The Columbine School Shooting occurred during Clinton's AWB, and one of the firearms used was compliant with the ban, the other wasn't and was illegally sold to the teens. Even then, the overall gun crime rate during the ban dropped at the same rate as before the ban; meaning it had no effect whatsoever on crime. If word came down tomorrow that we had to hand all of our guns in to the local police station, you still have tens of thousands of certified gunsmiths who can build firearms from scrap, and [URL="http://thechive.com/2012/12/06/apparently-you-can-make-an-ak-47-out-of-just-about-anything-25-photos/"]uncertified ones who can build a rifle from a shovel[/URL]. Of course theres a million and one reasons why a confiscation wouldn't work in the first place. Even then, if all guns disappeared from the US you might see the homicide rate drop but I doubt the overall rate of violent crimes would drop. It's sticking a bandaid on the issue while pissing off a huge chunk of the US population who have never committed a crime and never intended too. You're banning steak because people without teeth can't chew it. You should focus more on societal factors [b]causing[/b] the gun violence since thats actually going to stop the violence. It's foolish to go after the tools of a crime instead of the cause of the crime. [editline]30th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mechanical43;52416150] are you for real? remove all third world countries and redo that graph and I bet my ass that the you will see the correlation.[/QUOTE] Why remove third world countries? Are you saying that different countries have different societal and economic factors, despite similarities in gun control? That's an interesting point! It's almost as if it's retarded to just compare completely different countries on just one factor, and ignore every other single factor! [editline]30th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;52417780]I think that bearing arms as a right is an abomination. As a privilege, it's A-okay. Misguided idealism is cute, but it doesn't work in practice, and the culture surrounding guns in the States is ample proof of that. No doubt my comment will offend many Americans, but people aren't given a 'right' to drive a car. Guns, as tools that are designed to kill and are arguably more dangerous by far, should be given at least as much consideration. Only those with adequate training who have proven competent and stable should be allowed to own one.[/QUOTE] Damn this is edgy.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52417884]Never have I said that giving European citizens firearms would suddenly nullify terrorist attacks. My whole point here is that with proper regulation, it won't hurt anything by allowing citizens to have a new hobby.[/QUOTE] Citizens who want to shoot for sport in Europe already can. My GF does it. There are simply strict regulations that forbid you from keeping your weapon in operating conditions outside of the shooting range. You absolutely can use a weapon for hunting and sports, provided you follow regulations. What you can't do is carry a weapon around ready to be used, and I don't see why that should be changed. [QUOTE]In the US, it's not at all possible to limit availability of firearms, or even reduce their efficacy, theres just far too many. Even if you do it won't solve or start to solve the problem with gun crime in the US. The Columbine School Shooting occurred during Clinton's AWB, and one of the firearms used was compliant with the ban, the other wasn't and was illegally sold to the teens. Even then, the overall gun crime rate during the ban dropped at the same rate as before the ban; meaning it had no effect whatsoever on crime. If word came down tomorrow that we had to hand all of our guns in to the local police station, you still have tens of thousands of certified gunsmiths who can build firearms from scrap, and [URL="http://thechive.com/2012/12/06/apparently-you-can-make-an-ak-47-out-of-just-about-anything-25-photos/"]uncertified ones who can build a rifle from a shovel[/URL]. Of course theres a million and one reasons why a confiscation wouldn't work in the first place. Even then, if all guns disappeared from the US you might see the homicide rate drop but I doubt the overall rate of violent crimes would drop. It's sticking a bandaid on the issue while pissing off a huge chunk of the US population who have never committed a crime and never intended too. You're banning steak because people without teeth can't chew it. You should focus more on societal factors [b]causing[/b] the gun violence since thats actually going to stop the violence. It's foolish to go after the tools of a crime instead of the cause of the crime.[/QUOTE] Yes, now that the US are oversaturated with weapons it's practically impossible to reverse course. This irreversibility is precisely why I don't want the same scenario to happen to countries where that isn't an issue yet.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52417914]Citizens who want to shoot for sport in Europe already can. My GF does it. There are simply strict regulations that forbid you from keeping your weapon in operating conditions outside of the shooting range. You absolutely can use a weapon for hunting and sports, provided you follow regulations. What you can't do is carry a weapon around ready to be used, and I don't see why that should be changed.[/quote] And I don't see why it shouldn't be. And you're giving too much credit to gun control laws in Europe; they're not whats stopping violence in those countries. [QUOTE=_Axel;52417914] Yes, now that the US are oversaturated with weapons it's practically impossible to reverse course. This irreversibility is precisely why I don't want the same scenario to happen to countries where that isn't an issue yet.[/QUOTE] Yea it's pretty terrible here. I got shot at 14 times while I was trying to grab a loaf of bread from the Guns'n'Grocery down the street, and I got caught between 3 police shootouts on my way home. It's truly a madmax hellscape here. In all seriousness, you're insanely dramatic and over exaggerating the issues of gun violence in the US. It's not "irreversible" as you claim. It's an easily solvable problem but my government simply does not care about it. They don't want to support people at the bottom anymore, instead they just demonize them as freeloaders since they need assistance to survive. And because of that complete lack of assistance, they turn to crime to make ends meet which is the vast majority of violent crimes come from. In short, you get rid of the need to turn to crime to make ends meet, and you'll get rid of most of the violence.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52417956]And I don't see why it shouldn't be. And you're giving too much credit to gun control laws in Europe; they're not whats stopping violence in those countries.[/QUOTE] What would legalizing carrying achieve, exactly? You were talking about hobbies earlier, I already explained to you that European gun control doesn't hinder that. [QUOTE]Yea it's pretty terrible here. I got shot at 14 times while I was trying to grab a loaf of bread from the Guns'n'Grocery down the street, and I got caught between 3 police shootouts on my way home. It's truly a madmax hellscape here. In all seriousness, you're insanely dramatic and over exaggerating the issues of gun violence in the US. It's not "irreversible" as you claim.[/QUOTE] What I said was irreversible is easy and widespread access to firearms, for better or worse. [QUOTE]It's an easily solvable problem but my government simply does not care about it. They don't want to support people at the bottom anymore, instead they just demonize them as freeloaders since they need assistance to survive. And because of that complete lack of assistance, they turn to crime to make ends meet which is the vast majority of violent crimes come from. In short, you get rid of the need to turn to crime to make ends meet, and you'll get rid of most of the violence.[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing with you that the root cause of violence is what should be given priority. But easy access to weapons makes violent events that happen because of it yield even more damage, and I'd rather not introduce that issue in Europe on top of the ones we already have.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52417970]What would legalizing carrying achieve, exactly? You were talking about hobbies earlier, I already explained to you that European gun control doesn't hinder that.[/QUOTE] Forcing you to store your firearms at clubs and police stations is exactly what "hinder" means dood. Your restrictions and taxation on firearms is purposefully setup to keep people out of the hobby.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52417998]Forcing you to store your firearms at clubs and police stations is exactly what "hinder" means dood. Your restrictions and taxation on firearms is purposefully setup to keep people out of the hobby.[/QUOTE] Because you're going to use it outside a shooting range in the first place? What's the point of taking it with you? Besides, I already told you you can have it with you, just not in operating conditions. Dunno what you're referring to with taxation. You should probably give me a source on that.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52417780]I think that bearing arms as a right is an abomination. As a privilege, it's A-okay. Misguided idealism is cute, but it doesn't work in practice, and the culture surrounding guns in the States is ample proof of that. No doubt my comment will offend many Americans, but people aren't given a 'right' to drive a car. Guns, as tools that are designed to kill and are arguably more dangerous by far, should be given at least as much consideration. Only those with adequate training who have proven competent and stable should be allowed to own one.[/QUOTE] So is the only real reason you have for wanting people not to have a right to arms is because they are dangerous? That's not even close enough to a good reason, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean people shouldn't have them, and the vast, vast majority of people are responsible enough to own weapons without any misuse, without special training. I think you just need to stop buying into the fear mongering, America is not actually the wild West and owning a gun will not turn you into a violent psycho. People have already brought up statistics showing that more guns did not result in more violence. People shouldn't have to prove they are worthy, they should have to prove themselves unworthy. And I think as an individual human, there is no inherent reason why on a fundamental level an average person has no right to own property, even a gun
[QUOTE=NovaConsors;52418073]So is the only real reason you have for wanting people not to have a right to arms is because they are dangerous? That's not even close enough to a good reason, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean people shouldn't have them, and the vast, vast majority of people are responsible enough to own weapons without any misuse, without special training. I think you just need to stop buying into the fear mongering, America is not actually the wild West and owning a gun will not turn you into a violent psycho. People have already brought up statistics showing that more guns did not result in more violence. People shouldn't have to prove they are worthy, they should have to prove themselves unworthy. And I think as an individual human, there is no inherent reason why on a fundamental level an average person has no right to own property, even a gun[/QUOTE] So let them prove that responsibility. Apply for a license, pass a test, a health check (And background check) and then and only then be certified to bear arms. Most people end up with driver's licenses, right? Same deal. Giving every single person a 'right' to carry a gun is going to be tantamount to giving an impetuous six-year-old a gun. Because even among a population of mostly capable adults, there's going to be some dipshit, a part of the lowest common denominator, who does a hell of a lot of damage because where a test would've found him mentally unstable or otherwise incompetent, having a gun was considered his right. Driving is not a right, it's an earned privilege. So should be owning a gun.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52418095]So let them prove that responsibility. Apply for a license, pass a test, a health check (And background check) and then and only then be certified to bear arms. Most people end up with driver's licenses, right? Same deal. Giving every single person a 'right' to carry a gun is going to be tantamount to giving an impetuous six-year-old a gun. Because even among a population of mostly capable adults, there's going to be some dipshit, a part of the lowest common denominator, who does a hell of a lot of damage because where a test would've found him mentally unstable or otherwise incompetent, having a gun was considered his right. Driving is not a right, it's an earned privilege. So should be owning a gun.[/QUOTE] Driving is a right, and you do not need a license to drive. You do however need one to drive on public roads (which is pretty much everywhere). On your own property you don't need a license and it is your "right". And I just don't think it's right to hold everyone else responsible for someone else's bad actions. If someone's abuses their right for evil or stupid purposes, why should the rest of us have our freedoms limited? And as far as mental health, for the US at least we already do not allow people who have been committed to a mental institution to own any type of gun, which I can agree with, but anything past that seems too restrictive as simply having a mental condition does not mean that you are not responsible enough for a gun but people who do the evaluations could just discriminate freely, for instance I have several mental "issues" but am still perfectly responsible and reasonable, and I don't like the idea that someone would just limit my hobbies without me ever having done anything wrong just because of mental illness stigma
[QUOTE=archangel125;52417780]I think that bearing arms as a right is an abomination. As a privilege, it's A-okay. Misguided idealism is cute, but it doesn't work in practice, and the culture surrounding guns in the States is ample proof of that. No doubt my comment will offend many Americans, but people aren't given a 'right' to drive a car. Guns, as tools that are designed to kill and are arguably more dangerous by far, should be given at least as much consideration. Only those with adequate training who have proven competent and stable should be allowed to own one.[/QUOTE] American gun culture is fucking dumb but considering the amount of violent crime in the States, the only thing that can really defend against a gun is another gun. Sometimes you don't have the time to call the police.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52418141]American gun culture is fucking dumb but considering the amount of violent crime in the States, the only thing that can really defend against a gun is another gun. Sometimes you don't have the time to call the police.[/QUOTE] Can you elaborate? Many people seem to hate "American gun culture" but as someone who is part of that culture I don't get the big deal. For me, I just really enjoy guns (I don't see anything wrong with that, people can be interested in samurai and knights and collect swords and armor, why is an appreciation for some weapons ok but others not?) and I realize that I live in the US so I take advantage of our situation and enjoy my hobby to the max by owning, shooting, and discussing guns. That is what gun culture is to me at least, what is your take on it? I know there are definitely some bad aspects, like once I saw an ad in a gun magazine saying something along the lines of "get your man card back" which just made me mad and sad for people who view guns as extensions of ones penis
[QUOTE=NovaConsors;52418137]Driving is a right, and you do not need a license to drive. You do however need one to drive on public roads (which is pretty much everywhere). On your own property you don't need a license and it is your "right".[/QUOTE] Do you mean to say that using a gun on private property should be a right, but not necessarily carrying it in public?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52418165]Do you mean to say that using a gun on private property should be a right, but not necessarily carrying it in public?[/QUOTE] I think it should be a right, yes. While a car is used for transport only, I don't think it's right to remove someone's means to self defense like that. With a car, they don't want untrained people making mistakes and costing innocent lives (and huge expenses that they can't afford without insurance, which is why insurance is required). But before someone says that the same should apply to weapons, I want to say that no one should have to "earn" the right to protect themselves, and that car accidents happen due to negligence, weather, mechanical failures, other drivers, etc. With guns however, there is actually far fewer opportunities for accidents to happen, because the only reason you would ever even have your gun drawn in the first place is if you or someone else's life was already in danger. With cars, a dozen things can go wrong even without anyone intending to make mistakes. With a gun, you have to go through multiple deliberate steps to even come close to shooting someone innocent or having some kind of accident. IMO there are no excusable accidents with guns, as long as you follow basic safety rules, there is a zero percent chance of someone getting hurt. You have to deliberately break those rules for any accident to happen, whereas with a car, shit goes south very easily, and often without any negligence at all.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52417409]According to the graph's source data, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the United states, with 3.2 gun murders per 100,000 people making up 67.5% of murders overall (working backwards produces 4.74 murders per 100,000). Meanwhile, in Switzerland with 45.7 guns per 100 people, there are 45.7 guns per 100 people, or just under 1 gun for every other citizen. They have 0.77 gun murders per 100,000, making up 72.2% of all murders (working backwards produces 1.07 murders per 100,000). then there's Finland, just under the Swiss in terms of density: 45.3 guns per 100 people, but with only 0.45 homicides per 100,000, making up only 19.8% of all homicides (working backwards gives 2.27 murders per 100,000). There is no pattern here. If gun density correlated to gun murder, as you say, then Finland would have slightly fewer murders, and a slightly smaller proportion of gun murders. And yet, only 19.8% of murders were with guns despite having slightly more than half of the gun density of the United States. Switzerland further knocks around by having [I]only 1 murder per 100,000 despite having 1 million more population than Finland, which is under half of Finland's murder rate.[/I] One ass, please. [editline]30th June 2017[/editline] On the topic of the parliament's approval, if the citizens wanted such a thing, then I am happy for them.[/QUOTE] one fresh ass for you sir. I concede that comparing the US to first world countries proves nothing. you need to compare the US with the third world. semi jokin' here
[QUOTE=_Axel;52418005]Because you're going to use it outside a shooting range in the first place? What's the point of taking it with you? Besides, I already told you you can have it with you, just not in operating conditions. Dunno what you're referring to with taxation. You should probably give me a source on that.[/QUOTE] The point in taking it home would be because it's my rifle/pistol/abomination of humanity orphan killer-15, not the clubs. Why would I want someone else to hold my property?
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;52418281]The point in taking it home would be because it's my rifle/pistol/abomination of humanity orphan killer-15, not the clubs. Why would I want someone else to hold my property?[/QUOTE] Why would I care where my weapon sits? If anything it means I won't have to carry it with me on the way to the shooting range. And for the third time, you [I]can[/I] actually take it with you.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52418005]Because you're going to use it outside a shooting range in the first place? What's the point of taking it with you? Besides, I already told you you can have it with you, just not in operating conditions. Dunno what you're referring to with taxation. You should probably give me a source on that.[/QUOTE] So no home defense then? No personal protection at all? And why should anyone have to store it somewhere else? If you can't access something when you want to (or NEED to) can you say that you own it at all? Let me ask you this: If you could see the future, and someone wanted to own a gun in their home, and you could mystically see that it would never be used to harm someone, would you let them keep it? If no, why not? The fact is that the vast, vast majority of guns will never be used for ill actions. And it is not ok to take away everyone's access to an item just because there is a slim, slim chance that something may go wrong. [QUOTE=_Axel;52418303]Why would I care where my weapon sits? If anything it means I won't have to carry it with me on the way to the shooting range. And for the third time, you [I]can[/I] actually take it with you.[/QUOTE] I want to keep it, I want to clean it in the comfort of my own home, I want my property to be MINE, not held hostage in some locker far away, I want to be able to show it to some guests, I want to actually own it. If you can't do what you want with it, you may as well be renting it. Just because you don't feel the same way doesn't mean that everyone else should have to gimp themselves and their hobby in the same way that you want to. If you don't want to truly own it, that's on you, but it's not right to force others to follow in suit just because you don't see the value in it
[QUOTE=NovaConsors;52418306]So no home defense then? No personal protection at all?[/QUOTE] Well the poster I was replying to was talking about shooting as a sports so I didn't feel that topic was relevant to bring up. I don't think it's worth it to allow widespread distribution of firearms for the sake of personal protection, no. Europe is way less spread out and more densely populated than the US, and our police responses are swifter as a result. By deregulating firearms, you give criminals easier access to weapons as well as giving them incentive to own one, since their line of work requires one if civilians might be armed. Thus you increase the likelihood of encounters being lethal on both sides. I don't see the point. [QUOTE]And why should anyone have to store it somewhere else?[/QUOTE] To prevent it from being stolen by someone who has malicious intentions? To prevent the owner from using it in an unsafe area where they may harm someone? To prevent kids from getting their hands on it and discharging it on themselves or family members, like it often happens in the US? [QUOTE]If you can't access something when you want to (or NEED to) can you say that you own it at all?[/QUOTE] Yes? Do you not own a horse if you have to leave it at a stable? Do you not own a plane if you have to leave it at the airfield? Do you not own your car if you have to leave it at a garage to have it repaired? [QUOTE]Let me ask you this: If you could see the future, and someone wanted to own a gun in their home, and you could mystically see that it would never be used to harm someone, would you let them keep it?[/QUOTE] I suppose, yes? Do you know how to get such mystical powers? [QUOTE]The fact is that the vast, vast majority of guns will never be used for ill actions. And it is not ok to take away everyone's access to an item just because there is a slim, slim chance that something may go wrong.[/QUOTE] Multiply that "slim, slim chance" by the population of Europe and you get thousands of deaths. When people lose their shit about terrorism and act like Europe is being set ablaze by Islamists, even though terrorism barely kills more than a hundred a year in the entirety of Europe, it'd be hypocritical to claim that is negligible. [QUOTE]I want to keep it, I want to clean it in the comfort of my own home, I want my property to be MINE, not held hostage in some locker far away, I want to be able to show it to some guests, I want to actually own it. If you can't do what you want with it, you may as well be renting it. Just because you don't feel the same way doesn't mean that everyone else should have to gimp themselves and their hobby in the same way that you want to. If you don't want to truly own it, that's on you, but it's not right to force others to follow in suit just because you don't see the value in it[/QUOTE] Those regulations are in place for a reason. Either you follow them or you don't bother with that hobby. You can bring your weapon home anyway, you just aren't allowed have it in operating conditions.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52418495]To prevent it from being stolen by someone who has malicious intentions? To prevent the owner from using it in an unsafe area where they may harm someone? To prevent kids from getting their hands on it and discharging it on themselves or family members, like it often happens in the US?[/quote] All of these things have happened at gun ranges. They're not some magical special anti-criminal force-field. [url]http://abc7chicago.com/news/40-guns-stolen-from-oak-forest-gun-range-police-search-for-4-suspects/1929930/[/url] 40 guns stolen from a range in April. Also, what about for people whose home IS their range? Like a lot of people in rural areas? What about for places that aren't ranges but people take their guns for use (like historical reenactors)? It would be pretty damn pointless if I had to have my SMLE in non-operating condition and can't use it for reenacting. Or even more importantly, home/self defense? It would defeat the literal purpose.
I think, at least in terms of the UK, the argument really boils down to whether you would trust these people: [img]https://i.imgur.com/x89mffm.jpg[/img] With being able to easily access a weapon that is capable of destroying multiple targets from a far distance and allows the immediate escalation of violence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.