So most countries where a total banning of guns is on are mad?
So most countries where a total banning of guns is on are mad?
Nope, in most states guns are readily disposable without notifying the Feds when they're sold on, so banning them would mean the majority would be untraceable anyway. I've thought long and hard about this. Where firearm saturation is high, a gun ban would not be effective. Here in HK, keeping them banned is probably a good thing.
There's also the issue of making your own. India is the second-most armed nation in the world and its gun laws are very restrictive. There are backyard factories everywhere, however, and the guys are getting better at what they do. Good quality European guns are readily available if you have the money.
Unless you have very stiff border controls, it's hard to restrict the flow of weapons. Shootings in Canada and the UK are actually up despite the stiff legislation in both places (but nowhere near on the level of the US of course).
There is an easy solution ....
Make a bullet cost $10,000 US dollars
eg " I am going to cap your ass you mofo, as soon as I finish paying off my bullets on lay away plan "....
Last edited by Skyhook; 21-07-2012 at 11:47 AM.
Putting a XXX% sales tax on ammunition except for say a few hunting bullets per year per licensed hunting rifle owner would be a simple and quick way to make owning a weapon less enjoyable whilst still not taking away the the context of the 200 year old statement 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' when arms did not include low cost rifled weapons.
Surely as a minimum deadly weapons should be registered to fully trained owners and stored in a secure gun cupboard to avoid accidental use.
You can't drive a car without extensive training and a formal test to ensure you understand the consequences of reckless behaviour but you can just pick up a gun.
Last edited by East_coast; 21-07-2012 at 02:42 PM.
I'm glad this don't immediately digress into a gun debate.....oh....wait.
One of the ladies that was killed has a brother that works for my company. Her good friend was also shot, but survived.
Carry on with your sensible discussion.....
When Australia had its worst massacre in the 90's, thanks to Martin Bryant , it sent shock waves over the nation, I remember first hearing the chilling commentary over the radio as I was driving home that afternoon like it was yesterday. The Australian public DEMANDED tighter gun controls, and got them within 12 months after that incident ....
USA has massacre after massacre after massacre, because a piece of paper stated that your country should be defended against any foreign or domestic enemy, which warranted that the people bare arms...
That might have worked fine when everybody lived in settlements and there were cowboys and Indians, and wild bears roaming around, but you would have thought at some stage some responsible gun reforms would have evolved under the banner of modern civilised society....... Walking into a comprehensive gun store today in the USA and being able to buy MIL spec Assault Riffles over the counter and high velocity ammo isn't what I would call responsible...Martin Bryant in Australia used an M16 ( when they were legal to buy in Tasmania )....
I don't think the founding fathers of the US constitution had civilians in mind that could just strap on some body armour, rocking up to a public space and just go on a killing spree of innocent people, just because they were having a bit of a bad EMO moment.
This sort of thing will continue to happen until society there becomes brave enough to accept blame for the actions of others that they aid in the ease of equipping nut cases with such a comprehensive arsenal of guns...
The blame rests with the American people, not the constitution that has been abused from its originally good intent..
Last edited by Skyhook; 21-07-2012 at 03:52 PM.