Why is it that you don't get snipers on the rampage in England?

[Samsa]

violent crimes have gone up but i wonder what has happened to the percentage of deaths resulting from these violent crimes.

[lawson]

Originally posted by PkPhuoko
i believe scouse_dave just had his ass handed to him on a plate

[lawson]

Originally posted by Samsa
violent crimes have gone up but i wonder what has happened to the percentage of deaths resulting from these violent crimes.

stop wondering and google dat shit, foo'!

[frail_and_bedazzled]

Originally posted by PhantomFM


look up, beefcake

hey, that wasn't there when i was responding, ok? it was just my opinion.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by PhantomFM


stop wondering and google dat shit, foo'!

i'm torn between my hatred for scouse_dave and my left-wing soul

*cries*

[lawson]

Originally posted by frail_and_bedazzled
hey, that wasn't there when i was responding, ok? it was just my opinion.

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~alroche/3beefcake.gif

[frail_and_bedazzled]

Originally posted by PhantomFM


http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~alroche/3beefcake.gif

hey, don't knock it.

[a fistful of yen]

i don't really care about all this.

in the end, i just learned that british people are overly proud and uneducated in their own arguments. same with whatever the hell beamish13 is too.

now i'm going to go shoot my neighbor 'cause he hit my cat with a reed.

[kypper]

Originally posted by PhantomFM
http://www.ssaa.org.au/ILA/VIOLENT.GIF

Uh... accidental suicides via guns aren't accounted for here. I wonder if that's gone down.

[beef curtains]

Originally posted by kypper


Uh... accidental suicides via guns aren't accounted for here. I wonder if that's gone down.

i know that when i've "accidentally" put a gun in my mouth, i was so glad it didn't go off. same for when i pointed it at my chest.

maybe you meant accidental homicides?

[scouse_dave]

Originally posted by PkPhuoko
i believe scouse_dave just had his ass handed to him on a plate

hardly...

all that graph shows is that british society is more violent now compared to the past. it says absolutely nothing about illegal gun use.

(the fact that crime in britain is on the increase is not a surprise to me, but there are many reasons for this...not least the fact that jail sentences are increasingly getting shorter)

i think you'll struggle to find any western country in the world that can exhibit a fall in violent crime statistics over the last 20 years or so. This is regardless of their policy on firearms.

find the same graph for the states...it should be amusing.

on another note, the graph has a somewhat misleading scale on the y-axis.

[scouse_dave]

maybe this is obvious and if it is i'll apologise to the more intelligent posters here...

on the early part of the graph, gun ownership increases and crime increases

on the later part of the graph, gun ownership decreases and crime increases

or, mathematically speaking:
X => Y
not X => Y

that tells me that X doesn't imply Y at all...it tells me that Y is gonna fuckin happen anyway...

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces


YOU CRAZY LIBERAL, you are the one misinterpreting the Constitution. Let me engage you in a little rudimentary constitutional analysis.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "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."

How can you dare say that the only way to interpret that sentence is that it means "the right of a millitia to bear arms?" If the founders wanted the right to bear arms to only apply to militias then they would have written the 2nd amendment as I just described.

Instead it states "the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I ADMIT, your interpretation is plausible. I just hate when extreme left-wingers try to defend their anti-gun argument by saying that the only way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it provides a millitia with the right to bear arms.

There are plenty, no tons, of good arguments against the right to bear arms. However, the 2nd amendment should be a last resort. The second amendment is where the right is derived. Think about it: why would you attack the source that has provided that right for over 200 years as the reason we should not have guns.

The reasons we should not have guns are as obvious as can be.

As for what that first part of the second amendment means "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" the possiblities are endless. Keep in mind that the time frame in which this was written in. Militias served a purpose then and they needed guns to carry out those purposes.

Just remember, if the Framers wanted the second amendment to only apply to militias, it would say "the right of a militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Well when it comes down to it, owning arms is a constitutional right, and any argument against them will eventually come down to that security net, which is why it needs to be addressed. Until the 2nd Amendment is changed, there is nothing that can be done. The stupid thing is, people are equating its importance with that of the 1st Amendment. Whereas one is still important today (and will continue to be) the relevance of the second is much less than it was when it was first introduced. The US had just declared independence, Britain was fighting to regain its colony, there were still internal struggles with native groups and the US, fledgling nation as it was, did not have a regular army to speak of. So everyone had to be prepared to fight at a moment's notice. These days, this is far from the case. The other interpretation, that people must be able to rise up against their own government if need be, is much more interesting - providing the means for people to go outside of the law if necessary. How relevant that would actually be is hard to say.