Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm with Yahwe here. The problem is the ease with which these weapons can be obtained. The dude just bought it in a shop. It's unlikely a weirdo like that would have had the street cred to get a gun in an enviroment like Britain say.
|
I wouldn't say that you need any street cred to get your hands on a gun really, I'm sure that if I wanted to get one I'd be able to, even though I have no street cred at all because I have attempted to steer clear of such idiocy. Although I guess it's down to who you know, but guns seem to be rather simple to obtain (or at least that's the impression I get when I hear about 16 year olds selling them)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yahwe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre
"successful in pressing Parliament, and the then-current Conservative government into introducing a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons"
"Following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns, and leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. "Long-Arms") that fall outside the Home Office Definition of a "Handgun" due to their dimensions"
Britain = massacre free since 1996
US ?
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Clinton not attempt to amend the constitution and enforce a ban on guns?
The amendments weren't made due to the consititution being codified which gives it very little flexibility. One of the main advantages of our consistution being uncodified is the fact that it is flexible and can easily be amended to follow the zytegeist. This is the main reason that I'm against entrenchment of our constitution, as it is at the moment it works rather well and is flexible enough to follow the zytegeist.
I guess they really do need to "update" their constitution to remove the stupid "god given right to bear arms"