There is a really limited number of people entitled to owning guns in most countries of the European Union. As far as I know only in Switzerland and Finland gun ownership is more liberal in this regard…
By contrast in the US owning a weapon is protected in the constitution and the number of guns of all kinds in American homes is simply huge.
By gun supporters’ logic it should be exactly the other way round - defenseless Europeans should be massively shot dead by illegally armed criminals every day and Americans with almost free access to guns should be way more safe.
Yet the crime rate and the number of homicides and shootings like the one we sadly just wintessed are MANY times higher in the US than in the UE. When you look at the statistics you will see this disproportion is overwhelming.
I would allow citizens of sound mind with clean criminal records to own non-automatic rifles and handguns. I wouldn’t allow them to have them loaded and available for use in any place other than their own private property (including home and place of business) or at a legal shooting range.
As things actually stand, here in the UK we have (I believe?) the toughest gun control laws in the entire world. But you can still pack plenty enough heat to see off your average intruder! (Seriously, just try going down to your local gun shop - you might be pleasantly surprised!)
“Gun advocates say household guns can protect women from domestic violence, although firearms actually increase the likelihood of being shot and killed at home. Proponents of weaker gun laws also argue guns on school grounds can prevent mass shootings on college campuses. However, the Journal of American College Health found that schools with more lenient firearm policies experienced more gun threats than schools that prohibit students to have firearms on campus.” Fox And Friends Say More Guns Would Have Stopped The Charleston Church Massacrehttp://thkpr.gs/3671110 via @thinkprogress
@platyphylla : Tu ne connais rien a la législation Francaise !
NON il ne suffit pas de payer 70€ pour avoir un gun semi-auto !!
il faut
être adhérent a la fédération depuis plus de 6mois
etre majeur
tirer au stand de tir tout les 2mois (suivi sur un carnet de tir)
passer un certificat medical de 15jours
avoir casier judiciaire vierge
avoir un coffre-fort
avoir obtenu l’accord de la prefecture et fait la demande en gendarmerie (avec adresse/identité etc etc)
les armes semi-automatiques ne peuvent pas tirer plus de 3 coups (2+1 dans la culasse)
les armes automatiques sont interdites
le port d’arme est interdit.
le transport est soumis a autorisation des autoritées (par ex entre le domicile et le stand de tir, l’arme doit être démontée pendant le transport )
etc etc
In the UK hunting is going to be taking place on private land in most cases, I think. But there may be designated areas in forests and national parks where it is allowed too - so one would allow people to use guns there of course.
I see this sentiment a lot, especially from our far right friends here in the States. No matter legislation is done, nor preventive actions, the reply is always “why? The criminals are just going disobey the laws anyways”
This is a matter of opinion. In my view, denying that the wide-spread ownership of guns, and the related gun culture, in the US has nothing to do with the obscene level of gun violence, ranging from accidents, to suicide, to murder, to policemen killed by guns in the US etc.is, if not an indication of lack of intelligence, at least a refusal to face reality.
I know from experience that discussing with US gun advocates is an exercise in futility. I am only glad that things are a little different here in Canada.
The father of the killer said that killing is not related to religion. Yet he goes on to say that his son should not have killed these people since “God will punish the gays”. I think it is high time that leading spokespeople of all religions be forced to state their position with regard to their fellow citizens who are gay. If their view is that gays will be punished by God or something similar, then those religious leaders should be charged with hate crimes and put in jail.
I am starting to believe our country should be like Switzerland. Allow guns, but encourage or even enforce/demand training. The problem is a good percent of people in our country distrust the government and abide by The U.S. Constitution verbatim, where any sort of ‘training’ or ‘licensing’ is considered ‘government oppression’, which therefore, people stock up on guns they don’t know how to use [safely] for the sake of sticking it to the man.
Also, our foreign policy isn’t exactly helping either. A lot of shooters seem to have come from countries that are warzones, with some sort of motive.
Just remember, in our country, if the shooter is American, he’s insane. If he’s elsewhere, terrorist.
I really think Islam needs a spokesperson like the Pope. It would definitely help condemn attacks as well as encourage good deeds.
Like every attack, if something like this happens and it was fueled by radical Islam, you would call it like it was: It was religiously inspired by radical Islam. In college, we have some of the ‘politically correct’ people saying these are isolated events and they don’t represent their religion, but will repeatedly call people that do attacks in the name of Christianity as such.
“…I think it is high time that leading spokespeople of all religions be forced to state their position with regard to their fellow citizens who are gay…”
Why stop there, Steve? Why not “force” them to state an opinion about their fellow citizens who (for example) have pre-marital or extra-marital sex? Why not force them to have an on-the-record opinion about, say, Communism or Fascism? Why not force them to come good and clean about literally any other view or stance that you might deem to be un-American?
“…If their view is that gays will be punished by God or something similar, then those religious leaders should be charged with hate crimes and put in jail…”
Now I’m confused. I thought the US constitution guaranteed freedom of speech??
I doubt most Americans don’t know the positions of Islam towards homosexuality already. Most Americans adhere to Christianity, a religion with a long tradition of intolerance towards homosexuality.
Sadly the violent Christian fundamentalists would be able to see the connection between what happened in Orlando with regards to religion better than many ‘politically correct’ university students since they know what it is like to think this way about the LGBT community.
I don’t know what us Americans are supposed to do whenever a tragedy like this happens. Questioning the 2nd amendment or the shooter’s religious beliefs always feel like fruitless endeavours.
No matter what I have to hope this actually gets better for us.
The way I see it, the all-important issue is whether someone is actively inciting violence or merely expressing a religious opinion. The line might sometimes be a fine one, but basically there are two possibilities:
1.) A priest/rabbi/iman says “It is our religious duty to kill gays - we must kill gays”, etc
2.) A priest/rabbi/iman says: “gays are wrong! Allah will punish gays in hell”, etc
Many people would strongly disagree with (and/or be offended by) the second of these - but the individual is, in fact, merely be expressing an opinion, and not calling for any violent action.
I find it incredible that Steve thinks that certain opinions should be criminalised per se. Who gets to decide what opinions are okay? The majority? So what if Muslims were the majority? Would everyone then have to condemn homosexuality or face jail?
What Steve wrote surprises me somewhat. I think it goes way too far to think that people should be put in jail for stating openly that God will punish gays. I do like the idea of religious leaders being coerced, in some way, into stating openly their real views, and when they do so, we should listen very carefully to what they really believe instead of trying our best to never hear it.