The USA and gun control.
What I found interesting about Bowling for Columbine is that far from wanting to see gun prohibition Michael Moore goes to Canada to say "hey they have a lot fewer murders and violent crime, but look how many guns they have gone".
Of course in Canada there's stricter rules on buying a gun, and that's exactly what people in the USA don't want.
OK seriously though, think about it, if you're a responsible gun owner, you don't want other people to be doing stupid shit with guns they've easily obtained legally? Surly it should be in your interest that it's made harder for nut jobs to buy guns and impossible to own one legitimately, that is also an added incentive not to be a nut job, because you're going to feel a bit left out if all your mates can own guns but you can't because you once did a violent crime.
So, if you need to obtain a weapon permit and wait a few days to get a gun, then why not just do it, why is that sort of thing such an issue?
Am I right in assuming that the real reason is that any people see enhanced gun control as the first baby step towards complete prohibition?
Of course in Canada there's stricter rules on buying a gun, and that's exactly what people in the USA don't want.
OK seriously though, think about it, if you're a responsible gun owner, you don't want other people to be doing stupid shit with guns they've easily obtained legally? Surly it should be in your interest that it's made harder for nut jobs to buy guns and impossible to own one legitimately, that is also an added incentive not to be a nut job, because you're going to feel a bit left out if all your mates can own guns but you can't because you once did a violent crime.
So, if you need to obtain a weapon permit and wait a few days to get a gun, then why not just do it, why is that sort of thing such an issue?
Am I right in assuming that the real reason is that any people see enhanced gun control as the first baby step towards complete prohibition?
Comments70
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
All I'm gonna say is this: I'm from the UK. In the mid 1990s we had a school shooting. A lot of 5 year old kids were killed. People decided that this sort of thing just couldn't happen again. So the UK tightened gun laws - didn't remove them completely, but just made it that much harder for people to access them, lots of red tape etc. Know how many school shootings the UK has had since then? None. And that is how it should be in most countries. ONE mass shooting is one mass shooting too many.
I think that was a bit of a knee jerk reaction, he should have not been allowed those guns in the first place due to his past.
Most guns in Canada are shotguns and hunting rifles, which are less than optimal for self defense.
Also its a moot point, since USA has more guns than citizens, it hasn't done a thing to stop the violence. Hell, 70% of the world's firearms are owned by private citizens (really more a statement on people owning more than they could possibly use than anything) what good has it done anyone?
Also its a moot point, since USA has more guns than citizens, it hasn't done a thing to stop the violence. Hell, 70% of the world's firearms are owned by private citizens (really more a statement on people owning more than they could possibly use than anything) what good has it done anyone?
Self defense against anything that anyone else can use to murder you and your family is the most basic human right that applies to all human beings across the planet. This is especially true if its a government that is attempting to carry out these murders/genocide. Therefore the only gun control that any nation should demand is total gun control of anyone in government.
If its a basic human right, then guns and ammo wouldn't be so damn expensive.
Enjoy having zero police and military, brah.
Enjoy having zero police and military, brah.
Your first comment does not logically follow, when America treated gun ownership as a basic human right, before any legislation restricting gun ownership, guns and ammo were very cheap. So just the opposite is the case.
Again, look at when America was first founded, the PEOPLE were the police and military (or more properly called the militia), they just didn't go around using their weapons to steal from people or enforce unconstitutional and victimless crimes that only they profit from.
Again, look at when America was first founded, the PEOPLE were the police and military (or more properly called the militia), they just didn't go around using their weapons to steal from people or enforce unconstitutional and victimless crimes that only they profit from.
Define "very cheap", because I'm sure they were never the price of a postage stamp or loaf of bread. Ever. I mean just the cost of the materials and craftsmanship alone...
Republicans be telling me we need more police to stop people in ghettos from shooting each other. Also, this goes into National defense. I don't see how dinky little militias would protect people from terrorism, illegal immigrants, nuclear war, etc. and all those other lovely catchphrases from Republicans.
Republicans be telling me we need more police to stop people in ghettos from shooting each other. Also, this goes into National defense. I don't see how dinky little militias would protect people from terrorism, illegal immigrants, nuclear war, etc. and all those other lovely catchphrases from Republicans.
If we are talking about pre 1930's when the first unconstitutional gun control legislation got past, it was very cheap.
I don't care for Republican or Democrat politics, they are two wings on the same Marxist bird, Republicans in more of the Fascist flavor and Democrats in the more socialist/communist flavor but they are both are tyrannical collectivists and are only restrained by the fact that we are the most well armed population on the planet.
And originally militia meant every fighting age male so I would call that dinky, our problem is not enough males practice fighting like they used to but some do and I encourage everyone to do more.
I don't care for Republican or Democrat politics, they are two wings on the same Marxist bird, Republicans in more of the Fascist flavor and Democrats in the more socialist/communist flavor but they are both are tyrannical collectivists and are only restrained by the fact that we are the most well armed population on the planet.
And originally militia meant every fighting age male so I would call that dinky, our problem is not enough males practice fighting like they used to but some do and I encourage everyone to do more.
Oh yeah, and both the Colonial and Wild West times had occasional gun free zones. Not the same thing as federal gun control legislation, but still interesting to note.
Yes but they were extremely limited in scope and federal legislation is a blatant violation of the second amendment because that is what the bill of rights is, a list of things that the federal government was forbidden to do against the people.
I've been wondering how it would go over to ban guns in cities except for personal such as the police or for a very special case. Considering cities are majority blue anyway enough people would be in support and people where the police don't get out to as much have "protection."
Our cities already have some of the most strict gun control. Take a look at Chicago. Such a peaceful place to live.
Funny how Chicago is the ONLY example I EVER hear about 
Yeah you're right! Blame violence on the stricter control of deadly weapons!
Because criminals follow laws concerning deadly weapons. Said no one ever! oh, and Kumbaya.........
And because criminals don't care we shouldn't have more stringent control?
Welcome to the gun control paradox
Trying to reason with an American on guns is like trying to reason with a brick wall. I simply don't bother anymore.
Trying to explain "The Second Amendment" to a foreigner makes me feel the same way.
Even people from places like Switzerland, which force people to own guns?
The Bible says it. i believe it. That settles it.
The Constitution says it. i believe it. That settles it.
I see no difference between the two. Both are unquestioning adherence to dogma. As long as that's the only thing you people can bring to the table (and it is) there is no debate. All the other typical talking points do not stand up to scrutiny and can be debunked simply by looking at the rest of the world.
Good day, sir.
The Constitution says it. i believe it. That settles it.
I see no difference between the two. Both are unquestioning adherence to dogma. As long as that's the only thing you people can bring to the table (and it is) there is no debate. All the other typical talking points do not stand up to scrutiny and can be debunked simply by looking at the rest of the world.
Good day, sir.
I care not about how you or the rest of the world feels about our second amendment.
Bible? I'm agnostic by the way.
So toodle pip, and all of that.
Bible? I'm agnostic by the way.
So toodle pip, and all of that.
Try
I'm foreigner and I'm listening.
I'm foreigner and I'm listening.
Bowling for Columbine was actually very misleading and filled with untrue facts regarding gun control and history of firearms in America. Everything from made up statistics to blatant staging. Like when Micheal got a free rifle for opening a bank account at this bank branch. What they told the public is it was just sign here, here is your gun. What they didn't show was Michael Moore actually signing his standard background check form on top of verifying his ID so it wasn't just hey I'm just some random guy give me a gun just for opening a bank account.
My problem with gun control is that none of the measures they put in place seem to solve any of the problems they want to solve. Before there was a time in which you couldn't mail order a full auto machine gun those days are long over okay I will grant them that one, not everyone needs a fully automatic machine gun ordered through Sears and Roebucks catalog but seriously going after privately owned Firearms especially people with no criminal records just because the weapons they own the government thinks is unsafe I find that ridiculous.
And we have programs we have hunter safety we have concealed carry courses we have every regulation one can think of. Hell Firearms manufacturers are even supposed to stamp on the barrel on the weapon itself "read the damn owner's manual book that comes with every firearm" you purchase. But that's not really the issue. Bottom line we have stupid people who own firearms, but we also have stupid people who think they know more about firearms than the people who actually own them.
My problem with gun control is that none of the measures they put in place seem to solve any of the problems they want to solve. Before there was a time in which you couldn't mail order a full auto machine gun those days are long over okay I will grant them that one, not everyone needs a fully automatic machine gun ordered through Sears and Roebucks catalog but seriously going after privately owned Firearms especially people with no criminal records just because the weapons they own the government thinks is unsafe I find that ridiculous.
And we have programs we have hunter safety we have concealed carry courses we have every regulation one can think of. Hell Firearms manufacturers are even supposed to stamp on the barrel on the weapon itself "read the damn owner's manual book that comes with every firearm" you purchase. But that's not really the issue. Bottom line we have stupid people who own firearms, but we also have stupid people who think they know more about firearms than the people who actually own them.