Can a Brit explain this to me please?

[winipcfg]

Please don't send them here.

[Sarien]

Explaination: there's a law and he broke it, the penalty is up to 5 years. No matter what an American thinks about this law.

I don't think you should step on the laws of other countries, especially not when American. You lock people away much longer over soft-drugs, you hype over euthanasia, you lock people in camps without any trial, you have the deathpenalty.

Yes you should look at other countries and frown.

Right. I lock people away over soft drugs, I lock people in camps without any trial. I'm one busy son of a bitch. Here's the thing, I'll freely admit that there are laws in the USA that are evil. They're laws but that don't make them right, and I bet I could produce a list a hell of a lot longer than I think you'd be able to. I speak out against them, and I try to convince other people I speak to, to see that no, stuff like gay marriage won't destroy you in the eyes of the Jesus. But does that stop me from being able to say "Whoa, British-guys, don't you think this is too much in this case?"

I'll make a trade with you. You try not to assume that all Americans are world stomping tyrants, and in return: Ik zal proberen om te geloven dat niet elke Nederlander een kankerhond is. Vooral aangezien ik vrienden met enkelen ben. Or in case I got it wrong or for the Dutch impaired: I will try to believe that not everyone from the Netherlands is a kankerhond. Especially since I'm friends with some.

Blame the bad grammar on Babelfish. My actual ability with speaking Dutch is somewhere between a baby and being in early primary school. Other than some choice curse words, of course. I was able to pick out that those were the right words, but the way I put them together is probably pretty simplistic. Doesn't stop me from trying to learn though.

I think that just about explains it.

The only problem, Sarien, seems to be that you disagree with English laws. K. Well, good thing you don't live in the UK. That's just how things are done in the UK, while in the US gun control is a whole different matter.

Granted, I think a 5-year sentence is a bit harsh, but whatever.

Nice. A Texan deigning to look down on a Kentuckian. There was a bit of a snap at you here originally, but I just deleted it, because then we'd be at each other for god knows how long, because neither one of would want to give in, and there's no use in it.

Yes, I realize that this is the law there. My opinion is that being the law doesn't necessarily make it right, however.

Nowhere in this entire thread will you or anyone else find that I've said that any other country on earth should live by the dictate of what I or any other American feel is right or wrong. I respect the sovereignty of nations, that don't mean I have to agree with this particular law or case, and doesn't mean I can't take the time to write what I think here.

See that last sentence you wrote about being too harsh? That's what I have been writing, except that I'm saying I think it's just plain wrong.

To everyone that feels like all they have to add to the discussion is "WTF American talking about another country?" or "zomg! That's the laws they want!" I think you should simply save it. Other people thankfully have apparently moved the discussion above your head. Good on the rest of you.

[Doc Flabby]

Explaination: there's a law and he broke it, the penalty is up to 5 years. No matter what an American thinks about this law.

The statetory minimum is 5 years. The maximum is life. The lowest the judge could give him was 4.

[Epinephrine]

Epi: More level headed than you think. You're talking about gun control. I'm talking about gun bans. They are two decidedly different things. I am not against waiting periods, because what's the only justification for that? "But I won't be MAD three days from now!" doesn't quite cut it. I am not against registering to be an owner. I am not against forbidding guns from the hands of violent repeat offenders. Gun Bans are however, something else entirely. They outlaw them, and in some cases in some countries will allow permits for legal weapons. In essence you have to beg your government for permission to own a gun. That much I'm dead set against. If I want to own a pistol or a rifle or what have you, I'm fine with being even required to register it. You aren't asking permission, you're giving notification as to "I own this." A big difference, than having to ask Mommy and Daddy if you're allowed to play.

I still don't see the point in the average citizen owning a gun. There's absolutely no reason why anyone would need to own a gun, unless you live somewhere dangerous in the wilderness where wild animals may attack you and those animals are so dangerous you have absolutely no choice but to shoot them. Alternately say if a farmer needs to shoot some golphers which repeatedly destory their crops.

Very, very few people actually live in those situations.

And yes, while I'm sure firing a 0.50 calibre rifle at targets 1 mile away is probably pretty damn fun, just because it's fun to fire a gun doesn't mean that it should be a RIGHT to own such a thing. There are very few benefits to society as a whole when guns are allowed to be owned by all, and so many benefits if guns were banned.

The point is, because so few people actually NEED a gun, and because the police and the military are generally trustworthy in a 1st world country and they CAN have guns, there's no need for any one else to have a gun. If you really need to have a gun, then you ask society for permission for one, and if you fit certain criteria (mentioned above) and prove that you are good for it and so on, then you can have your gun.

Unfortunately Sarien, as much as you like to think, 3-day waiting periods (or even 1 year waiting periods for that matter) and extensive background checks still won't stop kids from raiding the gun closet, or jealous wives/husbands from shooting their spouses in domestic disputes. Nor will it stop criminals from stealing guns from avid gun owners (happens all the time) and reselling them on the streets.

And hey... if only very few people are allowed to have guns, and the police catch someone with a gun, then you KNOW they're a criminal and even if you don't see them doing a drug deal right in front of you, at least you have other charges to bring them in by, and make society safer for all.

[genocidal]

Let's go ahead and get this out of the way, I'm a left-leaning moderate and a registered democrat in the US. I'm against the death penalty, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. Socially, I'm pretty liberal. So all of your meaningless "OMFG CHRISTIAN RIGHT-WING NAZI" bullshit won't fly and I won't reply to it (getting this out of the way because I've been accused of it before on this board). I would think that if you occasionally read my thoughtful posts you would realize this (and the plural "you" in this case is generally aimed towards people like Galleleo, Torquil, and Skitzo).

The point is, because so few people actually NEED a gun, and because the police and the military are generally trustworthy in a 1st world country and they CAN have guns, there's no need for any one else to have a gun. If you really need to have a gun, then you ask society for permission for one, and if you fit certain criteria (mentioned above) and prove that you are good for it and so on, then you can have your gun.

Here is exactly why I feel I have a right to own a gun. Sure you can call me a gung-ho-American-ready-2-kill-shit but I find myself a fairly passive person. The thing is, I DON'T trust mine or any other government with all the arms. I'm not going to surrender the only real line of defense between me and lunatics, crazed governmental policies (what's to make me believe that something like the Holocaust can never again happen?), or anything else that might threaten me or my family.

That said, I'm in favour of strong gun-control laws. I think handguns should be illegal; all they do is kill people. I love shooting handguns but I realize that it'd be better if we didn't own them. Handguns are a tough issue for me dually because I like them myself and because I think they may be necessary in SOME situations involving attackers, or what have you. But the numbers don't lie, and handguns kill more than they save. I'm keeping my rifles and shotguns though.

Unfortunately Sarien, as much as you like to think, 3-day waiting periods (or even 1 year waiting periods for that matter) and extensive background checks still won't stop kids from raiding the gun closet, or jealous wives/husbands from shooting their spouses in domestic disputes. Nor will it stop criminals from stealing guns from avid gun owners (happens all the time) and reselling them on the streets.

Point taken, but I think tougher laws and a, this will sound very cold but I mean it in the warmest way possible, cut-your-losses attitude about some gun-related deaths outweigh their actual danger.

And hey... if only very few people are allowed to have guns, and the police catch someone with a gun, then you KNOW they're a criminal and even if you don't see them doing a drug deal right in front of you, at least you have other charges to bring them in by, and make society safer for all.

I hate this logic. It's the same logic used by the current Bush administration that "if you don't have something to hide, then why can't we search all your shit?" Or, "if only bad people burn the American flag, then let's make it illegal so we can see who is bad." Just because something is illegal in a country doesn't mean it is justly illegal. Guns are not as cut-and-dry as my other comparisons but the idea is the same. Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I'm going to shoot someone - even if the law says I shouldn't own a gun.

If no guns existed, we'd all be better off. But they do and I'm not going to trust any government to just "protect" me and all my brothers and sisters on earth.

[Epinephrine]

I admit my last example might be a tad sketchy. But hey, when the police have to use anti-trust laws to bring in the mafia because they can't find any other way to arrest the leaders, I don't think this is a stretch.

If no guns existed, we'd all be better off. But they do and I'm not going to trust any government to just "protect" me and all my brothers and sisters on earth.

Then I ask a few questions:
1) Do you own a gun.
2) Have you or any one dear to you ever personally stopped a crime in progress using a gun that they owned, in a situation where the proper authorities could not have possibly done so?
3) Are you really seriously suggesting that private citizens with no real organizational ability between them having individual ownership of guns is actually the most effective way to stop this 'very real' threat of the US government turning into Nazi Germany? So effective in fact and the threat so real in fact that if the right to bear arms were revoked that it'd be all over because absolutely nothing could be done about it?

You might as well say you need a gun in case aliens ever attack the earth and you need to do some ass kicking. That or the King of England coming back to take the country...

[Zerzera]

Right. I lock people away over soft drugs, I lock people in camps without any trial. I'm one busy son of a bitch. Here's the thing, I'll freely admit that there are laws in the USA that are evil. They're laws but that don't make them right, and I bet I could produce a list a hell of a lot longer than I think you'd be able to. I speak out against them, and I try to convince other people I speak to, to see that no, stuff like gay marriage won't destroy you in the eyes of the Jesus. But does that stop me from being able to say "Whoa, British-guys, don't you think this is too much in this case?"

So what's your problem exactly?

Argument 1: The guy didn't seem to be a bad guy, so the sentence is harsh
Argument 2: Why are people sentenced for having weapons anyway, weapons are cool.

I think you are saying that lady Justice should take off her blindfold? He broke the law, but he seems such a nice guy.
No wait, you know what, I'll chip one in, I think that sentences should correlate with your income. The more money, the smaller the sentence.
It's not it isn't already like that in countries with juries.

And don't bother telling me I'm wrong, because if you do I will just say I don't believe in the Dutch system either, ha!

[D1st0rt]

Its estimated in November this year prisions in the uk will run out of room.

Hmm let's see, they already used Georgia and Australia... What colonies do they have left?

[Facetious]

there are a shitload less shootings in england than they are here, you cant deny that. i'm willing to bet that most brits are happy with the gun control laws, as their country wasnt founded on the lack of such. if it works for them, i dont see why you have such a huge problem with it. your freedom to own guns isnt going to go away either.

[genocidal]

Then I ask a few questions:
1) Do you own a gun.

Yes, multiple. I didn't buy them but they were my grandfather's, father's, and now mine since they are gone. They were hunters, but I am not. I rarely shoot them but I enjoy it when i do.

2) Have you or any one dear to you ever personally stopped a crime in progress using a gun that they owned, in a situation where the proper authorities could not have possibly done so?

My best friend's father killed a guy that broke into his house and shot him. I haven't personally done anything and I think you're being misled by what I say.

3) Are you really seriously suggesting that private citizens with no real organizational ability between them having individual ownership of guns is actually the most effective way to stop this 'very real' threat of the US government turning into Nazi Germany? So effective in fact and the threat so real in fact that if the right to bear arms were revoked that it'd be all over because absolutely nothing could be done about it?

I never said any of that. First, I never said citizens individually could stop governments. But, were citizens armed it would be much more difficult to bend them to a certain will. I also never said that the right to bear arms is the only thing between me and chaos. Sure, probably nothing would happen for years if the only people that owned guns are "proper authorities". I just don't share the same everlasting confidence in governments that you do.

You might as well say you need a gun in case aliens ever attack the earth and you need to do some ass kicking. That or the King of England coming back to take the country...

Funny, you know what I meant and you read what I wrote. I wasn't writing a reactionist and sensationalist tirade about every human's right to bear arms. I was giving my opinion as to why I think the right is a good thing in the US. I don't give a flying fuck what Canada or the UK does and I'm not saying it's not working there.

[ZeUs!!]

there are a shitload less shootings in england than they are here, you cant deny that. i'm willing to bet that most brits are happy with the gun control laws, as their country wasnt founded on the lack of such. if it works for them, i dont see why you have such a huge problem with it. your freedom to own guns isnt going to go away either.

I can confirm that we quite like not getting shot

[genocidal]

But you don't have any gang-stars like me.

[Sarien]

I've been avoiding replying because I didn't want to post a reply that was born out of anger. Gonna do my best.

I still don't see the point in the average citizen owning a gun. There's absolutely no reason why anyone would need to own a gun, unless you live somewhere dangerous in the wilderness where wild animals may attack you and those animals are so dangerous you have absolutely no choice but to shoot them. Alternately say if a farmer needs to shoot some golphers which repeatedly destory their crops.

Very, very few people actually live in those situations.

A perfectly illustrated example argument for the ownership of guns, although that was completely not your intention. In a situation where gun ownership is legal, then a person is free to own a gun, or not, according to their own desires, needs, wants, whims, etc. according to their own principles. Freedom of choice. Your way, removes that freedom of having that choice available. No matter how you try to wrap it up, when you start removing freedoms from a people, generally the first one you try to get rid of, is their ability to fight back.

I don't really care if you think it's right for people to not own guns, or if you think that only certain people should be allowed access. Gun ownership is right for me, and I make that choice as an informed intelligent adult. And that's the very heart of the matter. Should I be allowed to make my own choices for my life, or conceed them to people that think they know better than I do?

And yes, while I'm sure firing a 0.50 calibre rifle at targets 1 mile away is probably pretty damn fun, just because it's fun to fire a gun doesn't mean that it should be a RIGHT to own such a thing. There are very few benefits to society as a whole when guns are allowed to be owned by all, and so many benefits if guns were banned.

Just because it's fun doesn't mean it should be a right to own such a thing? That to me seems like perfectly enough reason to want to own such a thing. And since I supposedly live in a free society that can pursue our lives, our own happiness, and our own liberties, as long as we're not harming the rights of other citizens, then it ought to be covered fairly well.

The point is, because so few people actually NEED a gun, and because the police and the military are generally trustworthy in a 1st world country and they CAN have guns, there's no need for any one else to have a gun. If you really need to have a gun, then you ask society for permission for one, and if you fit certain criteria (mentioned above) and prove that you are good for it and so on, then you can have your gun.

I'm trying to think of a single military or police force throughout the entirety of human history that could ever be termed "trustworthy". Nope, can't. And I am very glad I don't have to ask society for permission to own a gun. I don't have to ask them for permission if I want to get married, or for permission if I want to live in one area over another, or for permission for what I want for dinner either. Society doesn't get to make the calls for the indivual freedom of a person at least in my country, thankfully.

Now to switch gears so fast let's see if we can strip them.

Drunk drivers kill thousands of people in the USA every single day. When I was young, me and my mother were hit by a drunk driver even. IT's common place, and drunk driving is illegal. Why isn't alcohol banned? I mean people can live without it. It's addictive and poisonous. Why shouldn't only people that can prove that they will drink responsibly be allowed to get permits that will allow them to drink? What do you think about that? And if you do support the idea? Take a look at what prohibition did, and how well that worked out.

Can't wait for people to try to say that one is nothing like the other.

And here's the capper Epi:

I hate drinking. I don't drink if I can at all avoid it. My father was a drunk, and so I can't stand alcohol. The few times I do drink, have been when I've been pretty pressured to do so, weddings, etc. Regardless, I respect that other people get to choose what's right for them. If a person wants to drink, then who am I to dictate whether they can or not?

[Zerzera]

I'm trying to think of a single military or police force throughout the entirety of human history that could ever be termed "trustworthy". Nope, can't.

I'm trying to think of a single person throughout the entirety of human history that could ever be "trustworthy" and I can only come up with myself. :wub:

Drunk drivers kill thousands of people in the USA every single day. When I was young, me and my mother were hit by a drunk driver even. IT's common place, and drunk driving is illegal. Why isn't alcohol banned? I mean people can live without it. It's addictive and poisonous. Why shouldn't only people that can prove that they will drink responsibly be allowed to get permits that will allow them to drink? What do you think about that? And if you do support the idea? Take a look at what prohibition did, and how well that worked out.

Can't wait for people to try to say that one is nothing like the other.

And here's the capper Epi:

I hate drinking. I don't drink if I can at all avoid it. My father was a drunk, and so I can't stand alcohol. The few times I do drink, have been when I've been pretty pressured to do so, weddings, etc. Regardless, I respect that other people get to choose what's right for them. If a person wants to drink, then who am I to dictate whether they can or not?

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8034788/detail.html

Thank God for America the land of the free. Now please just shut the fuck up, let's ban freedom and call it a day. Who the fuck would compare drunken driving (which is illegal in the UK too) to people owning a shitload of guns.
Ofcourse some people could get into a car to hit someone in anger, but I never seen anyone using their gun to go to work.

[genocidal]

I go to work drunk. Wow, Torquil, you make Euros look like stupid fucking idiots.