Well there are always going to be negative effects of such a huge amount of firearms.
Enforce safes and 'discriminate' against certain people or leave things as they are and let hundreds of thousands of legally obtained firearms filter into the criminal community to be used and discarded or sold.
I know there is at least one other British gun owner here that feels similarly to me, in that if you can't properly secure your weapons you simply shouldn't be allowed them.
Besides, if the 2A is really about civilians having access to firearms as a means to prevent tyrannical government, I have no idea how that translates to using firearms to defend yourself against civilians.
If that's the case then there should be safes and firearms provided by the government to fulfill those rights and a box of sealed ammunition that's checked quarterly to ensure it hasn't been used, or at least have it so like in the UK you can be spot checked at any time to make sure your firearms are in your safe etc.
Pretty sure that's how it is in Switzerland, allbeit different reasoning.
By all means, if he is a professional in the field please share with me Ted Talks credentials, and then I shall address them. Until then, I'm going to be sticking with things like.... a basic fundamental knowledge of the drug research process within the United States, as is controlled and regulated by the FDA. Actually.... just tell me what an NDA is and what it entails without having to google it, and I'll be moderately happy with just that.
WOW, with a stellar attitude and educational response as that, I'm just at a complete surprise at why so many of your comments and replies to others seems so... oh man what's the word.... Smart... yeah that's it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_talks
What about all those "legally obtained" (by the US government) that were the illegally sold (by the US government) to known criminal organizations? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Wiki not good enough? How about L.A. Times? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...rious-20121220
Still not enough? How about the Department of Justice review? http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/s1209.pdf
People illegally obtaining weapons will happen with safe enforcement or without. With gun bans or without. There's too many ways to illegally obtain a weapon. The reason rules like this couldn't be enforced is that it would infringe on peoples right to privacy. Police or other would have to enter your home on a regular basis, and check into your personal life and property.
Well there is still this huge disconnect here. I'm not going to discuss the 2A as it's already been done by the Supreme Court. That information is out there, public and free.
I agree with the right to carry. The right to carry being allowed to people answers the whole "locked up in a secure safe" issue that most people in lower economic levels suffer from. While I understand that doesn't really make sense or fly to people from England, I don't really follow the whole concept the UK has against self defense anyway so neither of us actually agree with "reasonable" limitations enforced by the others government.
Sure, worked plenty of shows over the years. Only in south/mid florida though. Most gunshows here are dominated by 3-4 large firearms dealers, with another 15+ small dealers that are more specialized, and the rest of the show is ammo/holsters/airsoft stuff. South Florida has "no private sales at gun shows", mid does not.
Thank you, was that really so hard? As for my response to that, I think that another has already covered my response fluidly.
Andrew Jack in the Financial Times called it "an intense and a depressing read – both for the facts outlined but also the limited nuance." He wrote that "Goldacre is at his best in methodically dissecting poor clinical trials. He rightly stresses the im*portance of transparency so that third parties can pore over the data independently. ... He is less strong in ex*plaining the complex background reality, such as the general constraints and individual slips of regulators and pharma companies' employees. Nor is he able to assess the net impact of the current system: how many lives have been improved compared with those hurt by the current, if imperfect system, which has led to extraordinary new treatments in recent years for HIV, rheumatoid arthritis and cancer."
---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 01:39 AM ----------
If that is your opinion, than by all means carry on. I apologize for upsetting you by repeatedly debunking your posts.
lol pretty much. I'm one of those people who actually wanted to try to understand the other side of the pond and where they were coming from on this whole gun debate. So I took the time to poke around on google and see what the self defense laws were in the UK and get a feeling for how or why the ban was passed for them. The more I read about what you are and are not allowed to carry or do in a defense situation in public is fucking awful. That being said, it is my personal opinion. Reading how their system works did at least give me the insight or understanding as to why I (or Americans) seem so "crazy" to them.
This is an issue with the ATF and Federal laws being circumvented because they are too fucking lazy to fix their own problem. The "loop hole" comes from State laws allowing for a private sale of a firearm to another person without a background check.
Now there is a stipulation for this that is written in code already. The issue is that they didn't clean up the law to regulate tax records. If you are an FFL dealer, no matter what state you are in, you are not allowed to sale a weapon without a background check. What the "problem" is are the people who make a living going from state to state with the no background private sale and making a living at doing it. This is actually in violation of the Federal code but the ATF is too fucking lazy or incapable of working with the IRS to put these fuckers in prison.
Please tell me what you cant do in self defence in the UK, because you can do anything other than brandish a weapon, at which point it just became assault.The more I read about what you are and are not allowed to carry or do in a defense situation in public is fucking awful
Maybe you should "explain" that as well. Last I saw you agreed with me that something shouldn't be punished because :1 person out of 100,000" had a bad effect. The same exact argument we people defending the right to bear arms is making, that every law abiding citizen shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few.