Gun Control and Foreign Nations...

I know that we have pathetic outdated gun laws here in the U.S., but I've noticed that other threads have mentioned how other English speaking countries with high standards of living like Canada or Australia have stricter gun control laws and lower crime rates.

I'm just curious about how our US gun laws differ from other countries, and how this relates to our high crime rate. (Well, reletively high, I know that under the Clinton Administration it was the lowest it had been in like 50 years, but I believe we still had more per capita gun deaths right?)

Do other countries find our gun laws moronic and outdated?

 

I do not find the 2nd Amendment moronic and outdated.

It is part of the Bill of Rights.

 

I don't either. I do believe our current interpretation of it is though. Doesn't it say for the purposes of a well regulated militia?

Look, back in the day, if you armed the people, they had a fighting chance against an Army, as the Revolutionary War proved. Now, it's just ridiculous to think that our gun control laws protect our right to revolution.

I have no problems with people owning guns, but they don't need assault rifles, uzi's, cop killing bullets...If they want a hunting rifle or a revolver, fine, lock it up in your bedroom.

But this thread is about the foreign perspective.

 

From public opinion, yes, they do think it crazy for Americans to have the right to bear arms.

That's all they hear. They rarely hear the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment: that citizens have a right to arm themselves in a militia meant for the protection of themselves and their community.

Yes, this is outdated and irrelevant in today's society. I wonder how many gun wielders are willing to take a life (which--as we all know--is the sole purpose of firearms), and understand what that feels like.

 

As OWM pointed out, this is a foreign perspective. It would make sense to compare something foreign to the 2nd amendment perhaps, but try to keep it based outside the U.S. if possible .

 

Our founding fathers, well versed in the experiences of other nations, knew it was essential to have an armed population oustide of the centralized government.

I don't think a tyrant like Saddam would have ever been able to come to power here in the US, nor a guy like Hitler or Stalin.

 

The US has a trained militia, in addition to the regular army. I fail to see the need for a bunch of people carrying guns without proper training. That's why there are so many accidents with them, especially involving children. I think the negative aspects of having guns (accidents, crime, etc.) far outweight the advantages.

Also, I believe the 2nd amendment is outdated. Just because it's in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that it has to always be there. The constituation has been amended before. I believe it should continue to be amended to remain current and relative.

 

Yes, people from outside the US view the gun laws as very outdated and just crazy. Everyone in my own country i have spoken to view it as rediculous.

 

An amendment to amend the Second Amendment would never pass.

 

Here is what the second amendment says:

Amendment II

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.

 

Didn't Canada make everyone register their gun right before they took away their right to bear arms?

 

Stupid Canadians!

Never question the amendments!!

 

It's too cold to go outside and shoot somebody in Canada.

 

First of all, the Constitution put restrictions on the government, not the people. Second the only Ammendment to ever be repealed was Prohibition, because of the very reason I just stated.

Third, in the over 200 years of this great country, the only time the Bill of Rights was touched was when it was written. You take away the Second Ammendment, who is to say the Fourth won't be next? Or the First? Or the Fifth?

 

I hope that wasn't in response to me, Kaine. As I see it this is an important part of our rights. However using it as a reason to give everyone a gun, is not. We have the right to bear arms. We do not have to necessarily have them though. Big difference. It's not as if they're forcing us to have guns.

 

Many people in Britain cannot see the sense in your gun laws.

We do not view ourselves as any less free than our American cousins and the UK has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe.

The second amendment was relevent to 1787 (or whenever it was). In order to reflect today's society then your Constitution needs to be flexible.

"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."

Being necessary in the 18th century not necessarily in the 21st century. Blind obedience and an unwillingness to question is dangerous (IMHO).

 

There are limits to everything. For example, freedom of speech. A person can't run into a crowded room full of hundreds of people screaming at the top of his or her lungs that's there's a fire in the building when there isn't one.

 

Being necessary in the 18th century not necessarily in the 21st century. Blind obedience and an unwillingness to question is dangerous (IMHO).

The monarchy is a tad outdated too, isn't it?

?

 

The second amendment was relevent to 1787 (or whenever it was). In order to reflect today's society then your Constitution needs to be flexible.

And the world says we're ignorant about other countries.

It's relevant now. It's just not used that much.


The monarchy is a tad outdated too, isn't it?

No, it just seems outdated considering it was only relevant in the middle ages.

 

The monarchy is a tad outdated too, isn't it?

The English Monarchy (or any other European monarchy for that matter, for example, the Belgian) has no real power. They're show. Nothing more.

 

I don't really see the point of this thread ... what's there to debate?

 

The monarchy doesn't shoot people.

Didn't Canada make everyone register their gun right before they took away their right to bear arms?

Canadians have never considered themselves to have the RIGHT to bear arms. Here, it is a privilage. And, the vast majority of Canadians are happy with that. We'd rather have our low crime rate than your guns.

 

The monarchy may be a tad outdated, DM, but compulsory archery practice was dropped a very long time ago.

There nothing wrong with people owning guns - lots of people in the UK own guns - what I find very strange is that people are allowed to carry them around, loaded, even in built-up areas where it's very difficult to imagine what they could find to shoot except another human. Or have I got that wrong? It's certainly the impression I've got from reading some people's posts on the subject.

 

Canadians have never considered themselves to have the RIGHT to bear arms. Here, it is a privilage. And, the vast majority of Canadians are happy with that. We'd rather have our low crime rate than your guns.


If you factor in Canada's population density I'd hardly consider not having guns to be correlated with having low crime. There's more ways to die than just by a gunshot.

 

but compulsory archery practice was dropped a very long time ago