Quote Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus View Post
Not to make light of such things, but that does put it into perspective, doesn't it?
I'm not sure it does, because those are just the ones that make it over here. That could be a a 5th, or even a 10th. While it's still a small number, it is significant.

Well, that's the point. Don't legislate it.
I don't understand, you have the "right" to bear arms legislated for, but not the attendant responsibility to be competant. That's the current state of affairs.

It has greater potential, yes.

Considering that you have to know such a basic fact to be able to fire a "weapon," I think it's safe to say that you needn't worry about ignorance to THAT extent, certainly.

I say sir; either you have quite underestimated my intelligence, or you have little experience with firearms, and thus think that this could possibly be a complex question.
Neither, it's merely a way to quickly guage the level of your understanding, and to demonstrate my own. It helps to know who you're talking to, and it's fairer than to ask a relatively pointless question, such as the average pitch of rifling, or the practical operation of AR-15 derivative weapons (gas operated, rotating bolt)

Either way, I shall oblige you. I remain quite amiable; not to worry.

A firearm (I would hasten to remind you that a firearm is not a "weapon" until it is fired in anger, so to speak) is considered 'unloaded' when the chamber and magazine are empty of ammunition.

A firearm is considered 'safe' when it is loaded, but uncocked. Thus it cannot discharge accidentally. I suppose you could consider it to be safe when it is cocked, but any of a number of safety designs are used to prevent discharge, such as trigger safety, slide safety, grip safety, etc.

If that's really all you want; for people to have that level of understanding... well I think you can rest assured that anybody who is smart enough to undergo the business transaction of acquiring a firearm and ammunition is quite capable of achieving this level of awareness.

Functioning a firearm is really not as complicated as you make it out to be.
Absolutely right, though I have never heard the distinction between "firearm" and "weapon", in fact the two mean the same thing, because "arm" means "weapon". So, we've established that the principles of operating a weapon are simple. I pose to you, again, the question of why testing that basic knowledge before allowing someone to operate one is so onerous.

Well, you are right. I might have thought of the fact that the British had no armored vehicles or aircraft.

But you get my point I trust. Not to say that we'd necessarily win, as it seems quite improbable.
I do take your point, I'm just making the counter-point that things have moved on a LOT since then.

[quote]For the moment, perhaps. But what about one or two generations down the road?

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a bowl of milk. It's as simple as that.[/quote

I really don't see why. Labour has run roughshod over our Constitution, if the Conservatives don't undo the damage they'll be out of their ears soonest. Democracies only collapse when the people want them to.

No no no, the point is that you can't.
Why not, it's pretty clear that your Constitution links the two. You own guns in order to be part of the militia, and to protect your liberty.

Frankly, sir, there are a good many politicians who have openly expressed their desire to literally ban all semi-automatic firearms, as preposturous a notion as that seems.

I don't think my suspicions are by any means unwarranted.
Well, they might ban semi-automatic weapons, but that wouldn't make you less safe, or more oppressed. It would just mean that you can't have semi-automatic weapons. At the moment, if you exercise your right to resist Federal authority, the Feds use snipers, bombs, machine guns and armoured vehichels. The Afgans and Iraqis couldn't defeat the US Military, the US population certainly can't.

After all, the Afganis are on home ground and have RPGs, they still haven't won a single major battle.

What? I don't see quite where you pulled this from. Non sequitur, so to speak.

I take it that you're saying that we should own guns if, and only if, we intend to be part of the "well-regulated militia."

Ah, but there you're messing with the Constitution again.

My whole point is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent clause. It is by no means bound to a well-regulated militia.
My interpretation is that the militia is intended to protect against tyranny, and so is personal ownership of weaponry. The two are linked in spirit and purpose.

What's so dreadful about the state of our law enforcement?

If you mean that police aren't able to intervene in a crime such as stopping a burglar as he enters my house, well... there's not a policeman made that can fortell the future.

Unless you'd like us all to carry policemen in our pocket.
I'm just amazed by the primative nature of American arrangements. In many counties you elect the head of your law enforcement. Policemen should be impartial and professional defenders of the peace, I don't see how elected officials can do that.

I really don't like generalizations.

It's a stereotype that Americans are obsessed with guns. Not even half of us own one. The reason we have so many is because gun owners tend to have multiples. ;)

I mean, golfers have upward of 20 clubs per person. Golf isn't an overwhelmingly popular sport by any means, yet we have all these golf clubs! Does it mean Americans are obsessed with golf?

However, I do here you on the general ignorance of the population. Actually, the ignorant ones tend to be the ones who support such amusingly skewed ideas as "assault weapons" and the like.

I'd be thrilled if people were less ignorant about guns. That would mean there would be more of us to support them. ;)
Leaving aside the "man in the street", your media glamorises guns in a way that few other developed nations do. I expect much of this has to do with the "frontier" myth, in the same way as Europeans are often obsessed with swords and axes.