April 6, 2003 at 12:33 am
I just read an interesting comment on a story about gun control in the US, on the BBC website. The last paragraph (I quote):
Like abortion, the issue sharply divides the electorate on cultural rather than economic grounds, with strongly religious rural areas far more in favour of gun use than urban, secular parts of the country.
Do you think that as a broad generalisation admittedly, it is accurate to say that relgious people are gun-lovers and people from secular communities are not?
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2918291.stm
By: mongu - 7th April 2003 at 18:20
Vortex,
Does your last post mean you agree with the article?
By: Moggy C - 7th April 2003 at 15:51
Most interesting statistic I heard came from the US
Some states have very liberal gun laws, others are stricter.
Apparently there is very little of a trend in gun-related deaths to discriminate between them (But then with the freedom to move from State to State you wouldn’t expect it)
However…
Take a look at the burgulary and housebreaking statistics and there are vast differences. Those crimes are not just xx% more common in the States with strict gun control – they are xx TIMES more common.
You just don’t do housebreaking if you think the owner might be armed.
Moggy
About the only people in the UK without guns are the law-abiding citizenry.
By: Rabie - 7th April 2003 at 13:28
while after a lot of examination of the second amendment it says you should hold and gun and/join/or militia (IMHO national gaurd)
to me int eh 18th cnetuary context that means the citizenship cna rise up as an army to resit invaders a time when tehy did not wnat a federal military
however in today’s climate with no native americans to raid the contry, and no chance of invasion, as well as a severl million storng federal military and a their budget takeing 1/3rd of federal income……………………
I persoanlly tolerate “sport” shooting” but 14 year olds owing an uz to protec their own home – what a JOKE !!!
on the other hand the swiss have a machine gun in every house and gun crime is of a european level – why because of socail issues as opposed to people owing guns (ok so this is a machine gun in a cupboard not a plothera of hand guns and other wepaosn all other the place)
rabie 😉
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th April 2003 at 06:11
“they ARE related…most pro Guns are men and conservative while abortion rights are women and librals….of course that’s a general view, but suprisingly acute.”
Wrong in my case… If a woman wants to have an abortion then who am I to say she can’t?
If the members of a society want to be treated as imbeciles unable to make and stand by the decisions they make then that is what you will have. A society of imbeciles that are told by the government what they can or cannot do. A nanny state.
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th April 2003 at 05:42
guns and abortion…
they ARE related…most pro Guns are men and conservative while abortion rights are women and librals….of course that’s a general view, but suprisingly acute. So, abortion rights activists often are those that are against guns and vice versa. However, my point is, gun right is explicitly stated in the Constitution (albeit for the “militia” what ever that really means…) while abortion isn’t…at least in the US.
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th April 2003 at 05:09
SIG are Swiss, the Sauer… as in SIG Sauer are German.
A relationship that was created to get around the strict Swiss export policy on firearms.
They make some very good pistols and also some very good assault rifles (though they are not cheap).
I think part of the confusion may be based on religion. Religion is often something very emotional and at the core of some peoples thoughts and feelings. Because of this the religion is used to justify things that it really has nothing to do with. ie “This, that or another thing is my god given right!”
I think we have probably heard some (religious) people say this.
It is not a gun issue, it is a religion issue, where religion is used to justify a stance or action they can’t otherwise readily justify or choose not to justify by any other means. This is not to suggest that gun ownership or anything else justified in this way is not justified. It is just that the logic is wrong.
By: mongu - 6th April 2003 at 20:50
How does abortion enter a discussion about gun use demographics?
By: Arabella-Cox - 6th April 2003 at 20:42
hehe…BBC again…
…what? Religion and Guns? Please….how about gun tooting Muslims living on the hard to reach places of Pakistan…humm…must be a religious thing. Please….because like almost every where else, rural area have very little amount of police force even in countries like the US. A single Sheriff have to cover thousands if not more acres of land. The difference between abortion and gun rights is very clear, the right to bear arms is EXPLICIT in the Constitution, but abortion right is IMPLICITLY refered to via the Supreme Court.
By: Sauron - 6th April 2003 at 20:33
I can only speak about my observations and experiences with gun owership in Canada but while it is probably correct that rural ownership and use, exceeds that of the urban population for obvious reasons (that even the most brain-dead anti gun advocate should understand) to make any other assumption about why or who owns them for what reason is stupid.
I will say this, however, that if someone breakes into my home and threatens me or mine and I am able to reach, load and aim my legal and licenced 12 gauge pump, I will shoot his f%&king head off if I can.
Regards
Sauron
By: mongu - 6th April 2003 at 14:08
Speaking of the Swiss, there were a lot of arrests amongst the Swiss last week, when England played Liechtenstein (you have have to fly to Switzerland, and get the train to Vaduz from there).
Apparently a lot of gun law violations. Anyone know any more?
By: ELP - 6th April 2003 at 06:36
Private ownership of a firearm is a moral responsibility. Seeing as todays society likes to blame bad events on ANYTHING but the person that caused it, it is no wonder that some people that think that way get upset about private gun ownership.
The article is crap, as I know people that own firearms that aren’t religious. I read the article. Typical slanted anti-gun bias. Nothing new. There are already laws on the books for justified use of deadly force. Break them, and you go to jail, end of story. Shooting sports are fun ( something you never hear from the anti-gun crowd )
Interesting the following companies build weapons in the USA:
Beretta ( Italy )
GLOCK ( Austria ) Very popular firearm here. It is also the most popular law enforcement firearm here.
Walther ( now teamed up with Smith & Wesson )
SIG ( Swiss & German? I forget )
Fabrique Nationale Herstal ( Belgium ) They also make the M249 SAW for the U.S. Military ( I would really like to get a new High Power ( fun gun to shoot and excellent quality )
And some others…..
As I always say: “Fear a government that fears you guns”.
I would love some opinions from some very responsible gun owners in Europe that come to mind; The Swiss.
By: Arabella-Cox - 6th April 2003 at 04:13
Well my definition of gun control is being able to hit a target with your first round… and I am an athiest.
I think they got close… the real division between the pro and anti gun lobby seems more effected by urbanisation than by religion, though I am sure there are also many who believe gun ownership… or more accurately being able to defend your self rather than wait 20 mins for the cops to arrive is a god given right.
Personally if someone breaks into my house and steals my TV… good luck to them. That is what insurance is for. If they attack me or a member of my family… the insurance company comes into play again… except this time it is their life insurance that will be billed. Of course due to the fact that I lock up my firearms and lock up ammo and bolts seperately the attacker is likely to become elligible for life insurance payment via a golf club or hockey stick than a firearm here…