A Land Without Guns

[NeedsABetterName]

Would your opinion change on that if you lived in the UK, where the police (outside specialist firearms units) do not carry guns?

I don't know. I've never lived there, nor do I have any plans to do so. Your culture is apparently quite different from our own. For whatever reason, your authorities have made the decision that armed police are unnecessary except in specific cases. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I don't know; again, I don't live there. However, your police do carry batons, don't they? Aren't those illegal for a private citizen to carry?

I do however feel that it's misguided to claim that certain extra-special types of firearms are only suitable for police or military members, which is what my post addressed.

[Corrupt]

If I lived in UK, I probably wouldn't mind just have double barrel for hunting.
But matter of fact, I don't live in UK.

Random nuance of our laws. With a rifle, the onus is on you to illustrate you deserve one. With shotguns, the onus is on the government to illustate you're unsuitable to own one.

Let me flip that, why is a weapon that criminals are guaranteed to use against me not ok for me to own?

I'd argue it's not guaranteed at all. Firearm crime is so rare that the police don't carry guns, and the overwhelming majority of officers are against arming the police as a standard practice.

In your society, firearms are prevelant, in legitimate private ownership, government law enforcement and by criminal elements. In our society they are rare, in all three cases. As a result, the idea of "disarming" your population is a a concept that is opposed with good reason. Certainly disarming the population would almost only affect the law abiding. I'm just wondering if you'd argue for "rearming" the population here in the UK, given the scarcity of firearm crime and the opposition of the local population to doing so.

However, your police do carry batons, don't they? Aren't those illegal for a private citizen to carry?

Yup, and pepper spray (which counts as a firearm here...for some reason?). You're correct though, if you carry any form of weapon, for the purpose of self defence you can be charged with "Possession of an offensive weapon in public".

I do however feel that it's misguided to claim that certain extra-special types of firearms are only suitable for police or military members, which is what my post addressed.

That's a sound argument.

[KoTeMoRe]

Mine in bold.

...the idea was regarding tracability and control. No one is controlling you in your shed, if you have not declared that weapon, because techinically it does not exist (as it is not registered in any book).

Your car in the other side, has already a footwide tracability log starting from you tail lights. ON a side note, as said to C. Puffs cars can be fitted with false plates as well, allowing you at face value to avoid licensing.

This is the way it is? Where, what was my argument? FFS the right to bear arms is an Amendment, with enough votes, it can be repealed. Educate myself on what? Please tell me? That the US has gun control? Are you for real? I made a reference on guns and cars. That reference is highly relevant to the debate, in the sense that cars are indeed way more controlled than firearms even prior their use as vehicles.

[Spartan10k]

I'm just wondering if you'd argue for "rearming" the population here in the UK, given the scarcity of firearm crime and the opposition of the local population to doing so.

That's for y'all to decide, not us.

[KoTeMoRe]

You can lose your ability to drive for any number of reasons. Reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, and various other criminal offenses are all grounds for revocation of driving privileges.

Unlike firearms rights (as well as voting rights and certain other restrictions), a convicted felon does not automatically forfeit his drivers license. That forfeiture is contingent on specific driving related offenses.

Exactly...so which is a right and which is a privilege when considering that?

[Corrupt]

That's for y'all to decide, not us.

We're waiting for you to freedomise us.

[Chulo]

Uhm...OK. Yeah, right. Keep digging. So it is a right erga omnes on private land; but not so on public roads. Which is it, right, not right? This is hilarious. Really.

LAWB: you know you have not thought that, not a dime.

Still trying to figure out how you compare a privilege (driving) with an enumerated right (gun ownership)

[KoTeMoRe]

Still trying to figure out how you compare a privilege (driving) with an enumerated right (gun ownership)

Because it is not a privilege...it is a capacity.

[commanding]

That's for y'all to decide, not us.

Well said Spartan10k!

[Ought Six]

Because it is not a privilege...it is a capacity.

The law says otherwise.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...ving_is_a.html

[KoTeMoRe]

The law says otherwise.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...ving_is_a.html

... from your own post.

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

I see no difference regarding both. In essence the capacity to drive, is even less threatened by criminal records than the right to bear arms.

[Sideline]

'Right of travel' does not mean that you have a right to drive...nice try, take a bus, ride with a friend. You prove nothing.....you are squirmy....just admit you're wrong already, It won't kill you.

[BenS1985]

The problem is the faulty assumption that guns cause crime. They don't.

Crime statistics vary by incredible amounts in the US. Some counties are safer than Japan. My county has less homicides than Japan does. My county is also filled with many gun nuts and full autos. Alternatively, cities like Baltimore have a similar number of homicides as South Africa or Columbia has, and has a ban in place on gun ownership. Furthermore, data from people like the Brady group who is vehemently anti-gun proves that regulations don't work - their list of most-regulated states correlates with more murders, not less.

Do you really want to stop murder and killing in the US? Start going after the real root causes. Education and economic inequality (failure to provide for your family) are vastly better barometers for crime, yet everyone loves going after guns as being the answer.

Teach people how to live a better life and they........Gasp......May not kill each other!

[NeedsABetterName]

Exactly...so which is a right and which is a privilege when considering that?

The ability to remove does not make it a privilege in and of itself.

In the US, you have to demonstrate to the State that you are able to drive while following the laws that society has put in place. In my state, the demonstration involves a written knowledge test on the traffic laws, a vision test, and a practical exam behind the wheel. These laws are things that range from speed limits to DUI laws to reckless endangerment laws. Should you choose to violate those laws, your contract with the State (the license) can be revoked.

For firearms, the onus is on the State to prove you are not eligible. Firearms rights can be revoked and restored. When they are revoked, they are revoked because you have violated the social contract ("the law," which is derived from the Constitution). They can be restored under various processes, but in this case, prior to being removed, the State has demonstrated through due process of law that your actions do not make you fit to enjoy the rights, privileges, and immunities granted to US citizens. That is a major difference between a right and a privilege.

I'll address your previous post shortly.

[KoTeMoRe]

The ability to remove does not make it a privilege in and of itself.

In the US, you have to demonstrate to the State that you are able to drive while following the laws that society has put in place. In my state, the demonstration involves a written knowledge test on the traffic laws, a vision test, and a practical exam behind the wheel. These laws are things that range from speed limits to DUI laws to reckless endangerment laws. Should you choose to violate those laws, your contract with the State (the license) can be revoked.

For firearms, the onus is on the State to prove you are not eligible. Firearms rights can be revoked and restored. When they are revoked, they are revoked because you have violated the social contract ("the law," which is derived from the Constitution). They can be restored under various processes, but in this case, prior to being removed, the State has demonstrated through due process of law that your actions do not make you fit to enjoy the rights, privileges, and immunities granted to US citizens. That is a major difference between a right and a privilege.

I'll address your previous post shortly.

You really take me for a retard; do you not? That proof of your driving capacity is matched by the proof you have to give when your background is checked for any possible impediment to owning firearms. Like...your driving licence.
The process is the same when your right and capacity is taken from you.

There is no difference...there is due process in both cases. The issue is that the driving license can and will be taken away from you for offenses directly related to driving, while the right to bear arms will be taken from you even if do not posses firearms or make use of them in any circumstance during the criminal act that resulted in your right to bear arms revoked.

The singularity of this situation is yet another proof that the legal construct in the US is a tad old.