black elk speaks wrote:
the same arguments can be made against the usage of automobiles, drinking alcohol and sky diving. if it is done irresponsibly, it is dangerous and possibly lethal. the actions of the foolish should not infringe on the rights of the responsible.
It depends on the amount of usefullness and training though. With automobiles you could argue they are very usefull and that you have to have a lot of training to get a license. Personally, I believe the way americans hand out driving licences is also a bit retarded. It's much harder to get one here. But that's a minor gripe anyway so whatever.
I have no real problem with a more strict regulation on firearms that says you have to take mandatory training both phsycological and physical to own one, basically a little like the one a cop receives but ofcourse less long and hard. (In the USA that is.) I know guns are an integral part of american culture, but you can't claim it wouldn't be a good thing if people learned how to handle and have one better. It would be a bit like Switzerland. You could even have mandatory military education, but I don't think that would really work as Switzerland isn't likely to start wars whereas the US is.
Honestly, the reason for these debates is the different viewpoints both sides have that tackle the issue from a wholy different angle. We are saying that societies without guns prove to be less violent and full of gundeaths, and your side says that it's a personal responsibility and that crime-rates aren't the issue. We're basically arguing two different things. You cannot deny that societies which don't have guns usually prove to be less violent, and we can't actually deny a lot of gun-owners are very responsible. You think that that fact proves you're right, while we think our facts prove us right, but they're totally different.
It's a cultural difference, and it cannot be solved by reasonable debate between different cultures. It's the culture itself that needs internal debate, which is happening in the US but often leads to too much gut-reaction responses saying the other side is "trying to take away our guns" or "they are just a bunch of psycho rednecks" shit.
another factor that grants americans the right to bear arms that most people don't seem to consider is that we also consider it our responsibility to overthrow our own government if it should be considered corrupt. i don't guess that your constitution or equivelant document addressed that issue. personally, I think that such action is long overdue in this country but it would surely be destined to fail since the population at large is lethargic and largely ignorant.
Which is why the european nations haven't bothered to put it in their constitutions as they know things like that don't happen unless it gets severly out of hand and at that point having guns or not won't matter.
The idea that having guns makes you more able to overthrow your government is silly. Revolutions are largely a matter of social change that is inevitable. The point at which it will work is when the military is reluctant to shoot at it's own people, which basically makes the usefullness of owning a gun nill. You can't fight the entire military with a couple of shotguns and handguns, but when they're behind you their guns will make the difference so you won't need your own.
In fact, I'd say an armed mob of revolutionaries is far more likely to draw fire from the military than a group of unarmed people.
