Charlton Heston R.I.P.

[tdr1nka]

I think the crucial word is "keep" which implies that people can keep arms at home. My view is that the amendment is now obsolete because there is no need for a modern army to call up a militia of armed civilians.

This is exactly where the word 'keep' comes into question though.
Allowing for two hundred years of misinterpretation, the 'keep' message has drifted a great distance from it's original context almost rendering the entire amendment obsolete.

 

[col]

Isn't it the case that criminals are armed to the teeth because of the lack of gun controls?

I dissagree,criminals will get them if they want them,it doesnt matter how strict the law is,you cant get much stricter than britain,but there are still guns here.

 

[User482]

As it is generally acknowledged that we have the strictest gun controls in the world, then there ought to be no armed criminals in Britain.

And the rate of gun crime in the UK compared to the US?

 

[col]

There is a direct (pretty much straight line) correlation between household gun ownership and death by firearms:

• 
  In the USA, guns kept in the home are 22 times more likely to be used in criminal, unintentional or suicide shooting than in self-defence.

• 
  Also in the USA, the risk of homicide in the home is three times higher in households with guns, and the risk of suicide is five times greater.

Getting back on topic, as leader of and spokesman for the NRA Charlton Heston was a focus for the gun lobby, arguing for the right to buy assault weapons, trying to prevent checks on gun purchasers, protecting rogue gun dealers and making America a more dangerous place. It is difficult to mourn such a person.

EC

I dont believe he was defending rogues or criminals,he will have been defending law abiding peoples rights,as they have them.To say he is partly to blame for criminals behaviour,is to put it bluntly,rediculous.

 

[User482]

I dont believe he was defending rogues or criminals,he will have been defending law abiding peoples rights,as they have them.To say he is partly to blame for criminals behaviour,is to put it bluntly,rediculous.

Recently, a delivery boy was shot in the US because the homeowner thought he was an intruder. This was criminal behaviour, and a result of the kind of rights that Heston was trying to uphold.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

You're probably aware of this, but many Americans would insist that their personal firearms act as a deterrent against the potential of future government tyranny.

Nevermind that a bunch of civilians armed with popguns isn't going to last all that long against the BATF and the US military, Iraq situation bedamned.

The spirit of '76 is well and truly alive in the States.

A couple of interesting points here. Yes, I was aware that some Americans want to be armed against a tyrannical government. The extent to which they could hold out is much less cut and dried. The American army is fairly small - I think it's only about 10 divisions, and there are over 300 million Americans. A lot of them are astonishingly good shots; their Bench Rest B team takes on a Rest of the World team and trounces it regularly. The military might be able to hold the cities, but I reckon the countryside would be a no go area subject to continuous sniper attack.

 

[Maz]

Recently, a delivery boy was shot in the US because the homeowner thought he was an intruder. This was criminal behaviour, and a result of the kind of rights that Heston was trying to uphold.

it's no wonder the US paper boys just fling the newspapers into the gardens.

 

[Saddle bum]

It has been rumoured. There has been a distinct lack of official denial that that the only reason why an obvious nutcase was issued with guns by the police was because he was a Freemason.

Hamilton was not a Freemason.

Re previous posts, I cannot be bothered to discuss the subject with the rag, tag and bobtail, especially when one is miquoted and subjected to hysterical rhetoric.

 

[col]

And the rate of gun crime in the UK compared to the US?

No where near as much,but then the number of guns here are very few compared to the usa,as is the size of our country to theirs.With every dangerous thing,there are going to be casualties,or accidents,or nutters taking advantage.Does that mean all dangerous things should be banned?Take knives for example,they are prolific on the streets in some areas,and most of them are kitchen knives,so what are the choices?Obviously we cant ban them,even though now you can get very solid well balanced heavy knives for kitchen use,but they can very easily be used for anything else,fishing,hunting,camping,or even criminal activities.Its not the item that causes the problem,its the person missusing it.Everything that can be used to kill or injure,is only as dangerous as the person using it.

 

[col]

Recently, a delivery boy was shot in the US because the homeowner thought he was an intruder. This was criminal behaviour, and a result of the kind of rights that Heston was trying to uphold.

Like iv said,accidents happen,and im sure heston wasnt wanting to uphold the right to shoot a paper boy,it was the terrible mistake of the homeowner,and if he hadnt had a gun,he would have probably used something else to attack him with,if he felt that frightened,or threatened.Trying to put the blame on Heston,because someone else made a mistake,is wrong.

 

[Chuffy]

Re previous posts, I cannot be bothered to discuss the subject with the rag, tag and bobtail, especially when one is miquoted and subjected to hysterical rhetoric.

Or being soundly thrashed in a pretty reasonable debate...

The stats that Evilcat quotes are pretty damming, whether you think the gun lobby are reasonable people or deranged neo-liberal rednecks. Easily available guns = many more people being hurt or killed, whether by accident or design. Ultimately it comes down to whether you think this is a price worth paying.

Personally I'd prefer to arm bears.

 

[tdr1nka]

Isn't it the case that criminals are armed to the teeth because of the lack of gun controls?

It is because of this that Americans believe they reserve the right to bear arms as individuals in order to protect their homes and familys thus perpetuating a vicious circle.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

Recently, a delivery boy was shot in the US because the homeowner thought he was an intruder. This was criminal behaviour, and a result of the kind of rights that Heston was trying to uphold.

Well, for a start, it wasn't necessarily criminal behaviour. Remember that here in the UK, Kenneth Noyes got away with killing a policeman on his property by convincing a jury that he thought he was an intruder about to attack him.

I agree however that if you have a great proliferation of firearms and scant controls and training, that the risk of accidents, stupid behaviour and opportunistic crime goes up.

 

[User482]

Like iv said,accidents happen,and im sure heston wasnt wanting to uphold the right to shoot a paper boy,it was the terrible mistake of the homeowner,and if he hadnt had a gun,he would have probably used something else to attack him with,if he felt that frightened,or threatened.Trying to put the blame on Heston,because someone else made a mistake,is wrong.

The murder of an innocent school boy = accidents happen. Nice.

You only have to look at the rates of accidental homicides compared with gun ownership to see that your point about using other weapons instead is completely untrue.

 

[redcogs]

Hamilton was not a Freemason.

Re previous posts, I cannot be bothered to discuss the subject with the rag, tag and bobtail, especially when one is miquoted and subjected to hysterical rhetoric.

You seem very certain Bum. How do you know that?