Arguably, it's the position of 'Sherrif' being abused there. In fact, it satrikes me that the position of Sherrif as it is in many US jurisdictions would be horrifically easy to abuse, especially on the local level.
While here all you have to put down on the page is 'Rabbits eating my grain/cows/straw' and get a statement of good character. Is that so hard? And yes, that can be abused in the other direction. But it still acts as a filter strong enough to ensure that it is extremely rare for legimately held weapons to be used in the commission of a crime.
And in this case, I would argue that statistics drawn from wikipedia do tend to be pretty damned muddy, when on another pages it's showing that the gun murder rate per 100k people in the States is ten times that here. Or for that matter, that our homicide statistics are inflated by including certain kinds of road traffic fatalities.
I originally planned to compare both countries, by comparing gun deaths to road traffic fatalities. Here, it's about ten percent. (20 V 200). In the US.... which has higher rate of road traffic fatalities per 100,000 than we do, deaths through firearms are expected to pass deaths through automobile (And I don't even know if that doesn't include suicides.) within the next few years. Statistics are great little things that can be spun any which way they need to be.
I can play the more emotive 'statistic' that more people died in one school in one hour, than in one country in one year. And then point out that these events aren't even an aberration. This has happened repeatedly. Multiple times this year in fact.
The idea that a constitution cannot be changed, or must remain sacrosanct is far more dangerous, however. I mean seriously. Are people that bloody closed-minded.
A gun is a useful tool. It shoots rabbits. Foxes. Bears. Hunting is a valid sport. Grey squirrels are a pest. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'd even push the boat out and say that there're valid reasons for owning an AR or AK rifle of some stripe. But is it really that hard to add a little qualifier in there that owning something that can kill people comes with certain responsibilities? To be proficient, to actually secure it, and to be responsible for the weapon the same way you're responsible for a dog, or your car....
I mean really. The whole point of living in a society is that you get certain rights, and have certain responsibilities to that society in return? It's no coincidence that the Court's service uses the register of electors to send out notices for jury service. Don't want to do jury service, then don't vote. You can attain privileges like a drivers license that represents certain trusts society has placed in you because you're a Good Person and demonstrated that you can in theory operate something capable of killing people safely. This privilege can be revoked if you get caught proving you can't.
Now then, do we have a right that should come with responsibilities. Or do we have a privilege that should be earned.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
While here all you have to put down on the page is 'Rabbits eating my grain/cows/straw' and get a statement of good character. Is that so hard? And yes, that can be abused in the other direction. But it still acts as a filter strong enough to ensure that it is extremely rare for legimately held weapons to be used in the commission of a crime.
And in this case, I would argue that statistics drawn from wikipedia do tend to be pretty damned muddy, when on another pages it's showing that the gun murder rate per 100k people in the States is ten times that here. Or for that matter, that our homicide statistics are inflated by including certain kinds of road traffic fatalities.
I originally planned to compare both countries, by comparing gun deaths to road traffic fatalities. Here, it's about ten percent. (20 V 200). In the US.... which has higher rate of road traffic fatalities per 100,000 than we do, deaths through firearms are expected to pass deaths through automobile (And I don't even know if that doesn't include suicides.) within the next few years. Statistics are great little things that can be spun any which way they need to be.
I can play the more emotive 'statistic' that more people died in one school in one hour, than in one country in one year. And then point out that these events aren't even an aberration. This has happened repeatedly. Multiple times this year in fact.
The idea that a constitution cannot be changed, or must remain sacrosanct is far more dangerous, however. I mean seriously. Are people that bloody closed-minded.
A gun is a useful tool. It shoots rabbits. Foxes. Bears. Hunting is a valid sport. Grey squirrels are a pest. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'd even push the boat out and say that there're valid reasons for owning an AR or AK rifle of some stripe. But is it really that hard to add a little qualifier in there that owning something that can kill people comes with certain responsibilities? To be proficient, to actually secure it, and to be responsible for the weapon the same way you're responsible for a dog, or your car....
I mean really. The whole point of living in a society is that you get certain rights, and have certain responsibilities to that society in return? It's no coincidence that the Court's service uses the register of electors to send out notices for jury service. Don't want to do jury service, then don't vote. You can attain privileges like a drivers license that represents certain trusts society has placed in you because you're a Good Person and demonstrated that you can in theory operate something capable of killing people safely. This privilege can be revoked if you get caught proving you can't.
Now then, do we have a right that should come with responsibilities. Or do we have a privilege that should be earned.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?