Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[the_std]

Alrighty then.

[ExiledV20]

Did I say that either????

*looks at entry above*
Yeah, you did. Or at least, that is what you have written implies. If you don't mean that implication, you might want to word your statement.

And secondly, why are you ragging on a non-American about whether they want guns in their country or not? He's a Canadian living in Canada. If Canadians want to have a 2nd Amendment like we do, they'll make one. It's none of our damn business what they do about firearms. Or Europe. Or Africa. Or anywhere but here.

That's the problem with most of my fellow Americans. They spend too damn much time worrying about some other country that's going along just fine without our opinions and problems.

[Mikkel]

Sooooooooooooooooo...........let's drop you off in the middle of the Canadian tundra. A couple of polar bears are eyeballing you, ready to make YOU the main course of the day's dinner. In your ideal world, firearms are banned. Whatcha gonna do???? Try to talk the polar bears out of filleing you alive while you fumble with dialing 911 on your cellphone???

It's not really a good argument, I can't speak for Canadians, I don't know their laws, but in Denmark (or rather in Greenland) and in Norway, if you go places where there are danger from wildlife, you carry a gun, of course. If you aren't a known criminal it isn't difficult to get a permit under those conditions. After all our "nanny state" doesn't like losing citizens to polar bears.
To get a permit to own a gun in Copenhagen, for instance, you have to either be a hunter or a target shooter, in both cases you have to prove that you have had the required schooling in gun safety and the permit has a time limit. People have guns here, it's just a bit more difficult for the insane to lay hands on them.

[Nyoibo]

From memory, isn't the rate of gun ownership on Canada about on par with the US?

[Tanasi]

As a slight OT if THIS is true the November elections will be very interesting.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

As if ammo isn't already too expensive.

Last time I checked, the grand majority of all shot used, on ranges at least, is collected and recycled and there are plenty of regulations concerning the placement and design of the range as does pertain to lead deposits.

[Rapscallion]

Funny thing, over here in Yurp the vast majority of us don't have to spend vast quantities on ammunition! Whooo!

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Funny thing, over here in Yurp the vast majority of us don't have to spend vast quantities on ammunition! Whooo!

Rapscallion

*Chuckle* any debating points, though?

No? so, even though many UK and other European enthusiasts still exist despite the prejudice leveled against them you're still perfectly fine with doubling the cost of the one thing that must be bought regularly for no real reason because it doesn't effect you personally?

What the hell ever happened to rule of the majority, rights of the minority?

Oh right! you don't have that over there, no wonder your government routinely shafts sections of your population. Freedom is so taxing, I envy you for not having to deal with it.

[KnitShoni]

Oh right! you don't have that over there, no wonder your government routinely shafts sections of your population. Freedom is so taxing, I envy you for not having to deal with it.

Cause, what, that doesn't happen here? Hello, marriage non-equality. Hello, racial disparity in sentencing of criminals. Hello, country founded on religious freedom now turned to trying to inject Christian mores on everyone. Their system is wrong because they have stricter gun laws?

[Rapscallion]

*Chuckle* any debating points, though?

Why yes, there is. The thread exists because someone thinks that we're doomed in Yurp because we don't have guns. I done gone found me a major advantage!

No? so, even though many UK and other European enthusiasts still exist despite the prejudice leveled against them you're still perfectly fine with doubling the cost of the one thing that must be bought regularly for no real reason because it doesn't effect you personally?

Well, price of cigarettes goes up every year in the form of tax. Doesn't affect me unless I go into a smoky place. I suppose I'm consistent.

What the hell ever happened to rule of the majority, rights of the minority?

Hmm, proposition 8? Gun acceptance didn't stop that. Oh, but it's not an existing right, so that doesn't count, right? Funny thing, over here anyone who wants bum fun doesn't have to indulge in gun fun first. We're at the halfway mark as I see it, with civil unions being allowed, but it's a cultural shift and that's always going to be slow.

Oh right! you don't have that over there, no wonder your government routinely shafts sections of your population. Freedom is so taxing, I envy you for not having to deal with it.

Please name such shaftings.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's kinda hard to be sarcastic and realistic at the same time. I don't dispute that the end result is a mixed bag on both fronts in that this country and those countries have problems. Different problems, but problems none the less.

However, as this has metamorphosed into a more serious toned debate from what was a series of funny hyperbolic/snarky statements, let's give this a go, again.

No one success or failing proves or disproves the quality of a governmental system. Overall It's best to say that neither ours nor theirs is fundamentally better than the other, but on the topic of gun rights specifically ours had done a hell of a lot better thanks to our Constitution.

Many people seem forget that most of the country was trending against gun rights until a few events motivated supporters to push back which lead to the relatively recent implementation of shall-issue and right-to-carry laws to say nothing of making sure that godawful pile of feces that was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban didn't renew. Much of this success was thanks to 2nd amendment in the end. The effort of the supporters didn't have to beat the loonies on the other side they just had to put up a fight so that it wasn't one-sided.

There is a lot to be said for having certain rights guaranteed against infringement. It may not always stop the infringement from occurring but it's a very important tool for getting rights back once they've been taken.

For the most part the UK and other European countries have done well without such guarantees. But the downside is that, in those cases where the minority is shafted, with firearms enthusiasts, smokers and anyone not buying into all that 'green' bullshit being the three that jump to mind, there's really nothing there to help them turn it around.

In that sense I think that our system is better off for having an additional measure to balance against majority opinion. Is it the end of all things when a fundamental right is taken away without due justification? probably not.And while the right to defend one's self isn't in the grand scheme of things as important as something like free speech or freedom of religion, that doesn't stop it from being important.

Maybe it's that we come from different angles. Over here when it comes to rights the default position is to have them and you need a good reason to take them away. Are you saying that over there, or at least to you, people should only get the rights that are important to the majority and fuck the rest? If so, prop8 must be right up your alley.

[Rapscallion]

Please name the shaftings we've endured.

Generaly speaking, the default position over here is that we have loads of rights - the freedom of speech in the UK isn't enshrined in a document we adore, but it's a fact of life. There are a few laws restricting it on grounds such as hate speech and encouraging terrorism, but that's it. People who want to go down the route of encouraging people to blow themselves up on planes or attack others based on their religion (two extremes that are very topical) are very careful in their language use these days, but generally speaking the stuff that's banned is stuff the majority don't want to say anyway.

The UK (I can't say for certain for other Yurpean countries) doesn't even have a 'written' constitution as a core document. We don't really need one. Certain activities are simply accepted as necessary, such as parliament having the overall say in law if something should be deemed as a legal necessity. If we don't like it, we vote the buggers out.

You mention gun enthusiasts as a targeted group. Generally speaking, we don't need guns. Wild animals? Boars, wolves, and bears - all extinct in the UK. We're rabies free and proud of it. The vast majority of the population aren't murderers, thieves, or rapists. Why should we need them?

Smokers - can still smoke if they want to, but that's an activity now limited to certain areas (UK only - not sure about other places). It affects others - made my throat burn on the few occasions I went to a social gathering. That infringed on the quality of life of others. Their inalienable right to blow smoke in my face? I think not.

Green being forced down someone's throat? What exactly are you referring to?

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The burden of proof is not on gun enthusiasts to prove that they need guns, it is on the government to prove that guns are too dangerous for people to own and in this not one has successfully followed through. Unless I pose a threat to you by owning something you have no right to keep me from having it. I'd say the majority of people don't need their own vehicles, and they certainly present a risk when used irresponsibly. But we accept that risk because some people need them, many people want them, and the risk is easily lessened through responsible use.

I know you don't have a constitution, and I know for the most part you don't need it, as both those points appeared in my previous post. However, I can't see how having such a document as a safeguard isn't better than the reverse.

Smokers can still smoke, for now. Even if the right to smoke if you so choose is never specifically pulled, but numerous governments are trying to tax that right away, making it too expensive to pursue in the same way as banning lead in bullets would make ammo similarly expensive. In that sense smokers are shafted.

Many jurisdictions are moving to ban/have banned plastic bags despite the fact that they are a much more efficient option than paper bags. Those same jurisdictions and others besides are doing the same for incandescent light bulbs. Anyone who disagrees is forced to do it anyway.

Keep in mind that the above applies to many places. Around here, over there, and who knows where else. It's not that this happens that much more in Europe than the US, it's that there tends to be more resistance over here, that I've seen at least, and part of that is thanks to guaranteed rights.

I've heard a lot of reasoning about a great many things. But honestly, I could care less if people 'get by' without certain rights or that most of whoever doesn't care, but not by much. Until you prove that firearms are inherently more dangerous than cars, power tools, fireworks and any of the other dangerous items people are otherwise allowed to own and operate, you've no right to ban them. If you do it anyway, than you're just as thoroughly in the wrong as you would be if you banned anything else.

[Nyoibo]

The price of ammunition going up in no way infringes on your constitutional right to keep and bare arms, I can't remember if it was Eddie Murpy Or Chris Rock who in one of their shows talked about making bullets something like $1000 each, it'd stop people shooting each other, because you'd have to really really really want to kill them to waste the money on shooting them.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The more something costs the more people won't be able to do it because it's prohibitively expensive. If the government steps in and causes that to happen, especially for the express purpose of making it prohibitive, that's a rights infringement.

Responsible firearms use means attaining and retaining a moderate-to-high proficiency level. That means lots of practice, which in turn means lots of bullets. If all bullets cost $5000 (as put by Chris Rock), only multi-millionaires could afford to be responsible firearm users.

Don't get me wrong, the joke is funny. But it's just that, a joke. Although I admit I'm curious as to what you define rights infringement to be, so I'll lay it out for you as I see it in this context:

Right = freedom or ability to do something
Infringement = reduction or elimination of a right.
Also, the constitution protects against governmental infringements.

Therefore higher prices reduce the populace's ability and freedom to operate their firearms by making them too expensive to use correctly. If these prices are instigated by the government without due necessity than they are in contravention with the Constitution.

Furthermore, criminals would likely not be affected as they would acquire their munitions on the black market where prices would still be competitive once more going to show that if you ban something, only criminals will have it.