Author Topic: The Armed Citizen - Oct 2003 (Read 8291 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #120 on:** November 15, 2003, 08:34:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
To protect ourselves if we are attacked by someone

A very good liberal (in the american party political sense) friend of mine, who is a professor of a redbrick university in America put it this way: My family live on a farm in Iowa, it would take the police hours to get there, farms in our area have been hit. That's why I sleep with a gun under my pillow. This guy is as 'euro-sophisticated' as they come' but he believes that people in isolated areas where there is a long term response to a 999 sorry 911 phone call means that a person has to be able to defend himself/herself (oops what a liberal distinction!) then and there. He is not prepared to take the chance that some mad violent person will come into his house and they will be defenseless. I can see his point. I don't fancy being somewhere miles from anywhere in that situation.

Nevertheless he is in despair about the amount of shootings in certain urban areas in America.

does your friend teach at a University, and drive hours to get home to his islolated farm?

If he has a right/need to have a gun, so does someone in an urban area, which is more dangerous than a farm statistically. Anyway, the police are not going to save you in the city...... they may get to you in 10 minutes, but that's too long for me if someone is stabbing me or otherwise trying to injur me.

By the way, another typical liberal trait is to deny to other people what you will not be denied yourself. In other words, it's okay for me to have a gun, but I don't like people in the city having them.

Same with Hollywood liberals: it's wrong to drive SUV's because of the gas , yet let me drive around in a limmo, fly around on private jets and buy huge mansions which suck energy.... damn liberal hypocrites... hehe

Anyway, hope you had a good time at the wedding ravells

ravells · « **Reply #121 on:** November 15, 2003, 08:41:57 PM »

NUKE!

If you saw the amount of posh English birds who had their tits on display in low cut dresses, you would have loved it. Ummm being married I could just look and admire...but no touching!

Thanks...it was great.

Right...gloves off again

There is a case to be made for people to have rights in particular circumstances. Extreme example: if some people are allowed to use nuclear weapons it doesn't mean that everybody is allowed to use nuclear weapons.

It's a case of limitation within safety limits.

take care

Ravs

ravells · « **Reply #122 on:** November 15, 2003, 08:59:55 PM »

I consider myself a liberal....actually in the dictionary definition term and perhaps not the demorcratic party politics term....I'm more left wing/green than that (if you hand't have noticed!)

Hollywood stars who do not practice what they preach are just trying to further their careers by jumping on the liberal bandwaggon.

Having said that....I'd prefer someone who was hypocritical and did something for the disadvantaged rather than someone who was honest and did nothing for the disadvantaged at all.

there you go! liberal! and proud!

cheers

Ravs

Hooligan · « **Reply #123 on:** November 15, 2003, 11:37:39 PM »

Rav:

From the definitions of liberal you posted in another thread.

Quote

noun: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

noun: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

adjective: having political or social views favoring reform and progress

adjective: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

adjective: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness

Laissez-faire and self-regulating markets?

protection of civil liberties (Pesumably this includes 2nd amendment rights)?

not bound by authoritarianism?

I'll give you progress and reform, since everybody's definition of "progress" can be completely different.

But your principles seem pretty far apart from the dictionary definition on the other points. The common usage meaning of liberal in the US (Authoritarian, anti-Laissez-faire and very selective about civil liberties) seems much more accurate in describing your beliefs, or at least those beliefs I have seen you express on the BBS. Miko2d is a classical liberal, and you don't seem to be agreeing with him.

Hooligan

jigsaw · « **Reply #124 on:** November 16, 2003, 02:36:39 AM »

Quote

the very remote chance that your government is suddenly going to turn into some dictatorship where elections are not allowed anymore

Na...they just reshuffle the votes until they get the one in office that they wanted. It's already a dictatorship.

Seriously though, one of the big problems in the US is people not understanding how the election process works.

beet1e · « **Reply #125 on:** November 16, 2003, 03:34:30 AM »

Interesting, Ravells!

I decided to gain a better understanding of the guns issue in the US. I didn't do a Michael Moore, but I was interested to know more about the weapons that are being discussed, and how owners look after them.

So I went to Lazs's house! And we went shooting near where Lazs works. It was an interesting day.

Given that Lazs's gun ownership is all legal, I'd have to say that he's a conscientious and safety minded owner. He has a big green safe downstairs in which all his guns are kept locked away. That's because guns do actually get up and walk away if they're not locked down, in much the same was as pens get up and walk away from office desks...

We fired off three of Lazs's guns. I liked the .22 - well suited to my dainty sewing hands. The .45 was like a more powerful version of that, with more recoil. And the .44 Magnum is best described as a hand held cannon.

Now the worrying thing is not that Lazs has weapons like this, but that anyone by virtue of citizens' rights can go and buy gear like this. The result of the constitutional policy of arming anyone who wants to be armed is that there are some 200 million privately owned guns floating around in the US, many of which get into the wrong hands, hence at least 5,000 gun related deaths each year - sometimes more than 13,000 (in 1992).

I came away convinced that Lazs's interest in guns is entirely genuine, but also that his feelings about any sort of gun control centred around how it would affect him personally, rather than the wider issue of looking at ways to reduce gun crimes and homicides nationwide.

I do think there's a sort of Guns-R-Us mentality at work though - Guns as toys. I don't think a weapons amnesty would work in the US - too many guns already in circulation, and only the law abiding would surrender to an amnesty.

So the only answer to America's huge annual tally of gun related homicides is for severe penalties such as 15 years for carrying a gun when committing a crime, and Life if the gun is actually fired.

BTW, Ravells, be sure to check out Channel 4 this week. They're showing the Oscar award winning documentary, "Bowling for Columbine". I think the promotion slot said it was going to be on every night of the week! It's an interesting film, quite funny in parts...

Pooh21 · « **Reply #126 on:** November 16, 2003, 06:07:25 AM »

Here in germany only 3rd world refugee criminals and neo-nazis are armed, what a spiffy place to live.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #127 on:** November 16, 2003, 07:45:19 AM »

get yourself one.

want me to mail you a spare?

we got plenty in texas

lazs2 · « **Reply #128 on:** November 16, 2003, 09:09:44 AM »

ravell... no.. the restrictions I stated are the ones I would like to see. If a guy commits a murder with a gun... when he serves his time they should give him his gun back. If he sprays 50 kids with an AK 47 then.... in 6 or 7 years when he gets out they should give him his gun back. if he can't be trusted with a gun then he shouldn't be out.... prove he is insane and you can take it away.... same for "temper" temper? what the hell is that? who decides that? in england that is exactly how they disarmed you... they let police chiefs decide who had a good reason to own a gun or not. Yu seem to like having people with power over you decide what your rights are... they took a right and made it a privilage.

so far as I know the UPS incident is the only concealed carry permit holder traffic incident.

There is no more white middle class gun homicides in the U.S than in say Canada.

In england the right to defend yourself against criminals and tyranny was allways just that.... a right... you have turned it into a privilage and a very exclusive one at that... you don't even see what you have lost or that you have given it away for nothing... you have lost a right and gained nothing but a rising crime rate. I hope that you never learn to personaly regret your mistake.
lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #129 on:** November 16, 2003, 09:18:17 AM »

The thing that people have to understand is this... The government hates and fears it's citizens... you give them the right to decide who can defend themselves and the only people who will be armed will be your masters..

beetle allways goes on about how it is ok if lazs has guns but not all those other guys... lazs is safe and sane.... rav says that the government needs to regulate guns... beetle sees no problem with my gun selection but rav would be in a stupor if he seen em some of the real womanly tyoes on here would wet themselves... but...

beetle... if, like england, I had to depend on the govenment deciding if and what type of guns I could have I wouldn't have any.... My background is terrible... plenty of excuse for disarming me.

I don't want to go begging to my government for my rights... that's fine for you guys... you are all pretty beat down and don't know any better.
lazs

Thrawn · « **Reply #130 on:** November 16, 2003, 11:30:19 AM »

"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur."

http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html

Tarmac · « **Reply #131 on:** November 16, 2003, 12:19:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur."

http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html

And how many crimes are prevented or halted by the criminal fearing or seeing that his victim is armed? If the criminal runs away, chooses not to commit a crime that night, or is injured, it doesn't leave any sensational statistics for you to quote.

ravells · « **Reply #132 on:** November 16, 2003, 01:23:00 PM »

Hi Beetle,

Yes, I have seen 'Bowling for Columbine' - bought the DVD. I've also read 'Stupid White Men' and 'Downsize this!'.

Lol! I'm going to probably get flamed for this but...I really admire Michael Moore. His interview with Alice Cooper on BFC was classic.

Were you at the UK con this year? Your nick is awfully familiar. I'm in Kew, so if ever you're up this way, drop in for a pint and a natter!

-------

Hi Lasz,

WOW! if someone murders someone with a gun you think they should be allowed to own a gun again after they leave prison!! You really don't trust your government! But if that's the case why don't you vote for a different one?

The difference in perception is really interesting. Doubtless you heard about the farmer here who was put into prison after he shot two burglars (who had burgled his house numerous times). There was a public outcry over here about that...but I do not think that it made people all want to race out and buy a gun.

I am totally relaxed about letting police chiefs here decide who does and does not get a gun...and don't get me wrong, gun crime in the UK is rising.

Couple of other things...you mentioned that the UPS incident is the only 'concealed carry permit holder traffic incident' - I'm amazed at this and if this is right I am very comforted that my perception may be worse than the reality. Is the word 'concealed' significant, in the sense that do permits exist where people are allowed to carry weapons in open sight? If so, how many traffic gun death incidents are there in this category? Road Rage seems to be the one thing in the UK that makes ordinarily sensible people seem to lose their marbles. Stress of city living, I guess.

You also mentioned 'white middle class gun homicides' in the US being the same as Canada...what about other races?

I was in Paris last December with my then wife-to-be for a romantic weekend. We walked out of a cafe and saw this man and woman fighting. Everyone was standing around watching. When he knocked her to the ground and started to kick her I waded in, jumped on his back and tried to restrain him. It was an automatic reaction - if I see a man hitting a woman I just go on autopilot. The moment I got involved then two other blokes helped. I am not a naturally violent person, and only come across it very frequently. I had the shakes really badly afterwards which had to be cured by three large brandies. Didn't impress my wife much - she said - Ravs, you looked like a monkey on that man's back! (Thanks wifey). The irony was that it turned out the woman had left a cafe without paying and the man was an employee trying to apprehend her.

The point of the story is that I shall be in New York this Winter and if the same thing happens again, I hope to hell I don't get involved in case I get shot.

Finally, I need some help from anyone here who lives in NYC. Can you give me tips of good military history museums to visit? My wife is begining to book up time with shopping trip after shopping trip - which is really begining to terrify me! I'll be there for 3 days between Christmas and New Year, so any help gratefully appreciated!

Cheers

Ravs

Pooh21 · « **Reply #133 on:** November 16, 2003, 01:31:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
get yourself one.

want me to mail you a spare?

we got plenty in texas

lol I got my Makarov, K98, and Mossburg 12ga at home in Arizona. Same with my K-bar

lazs2 · « **Reply #134 on:** November 16, 2003, 01:42:50 PM »

rav... you prove my point... if we allow our masters to decide who has the RIGHT to defend themselves and who doesn't.... it is no longer a right but a privilage... we would end up exactly like you in england and..... no one would be allowed to have firearms... least not like me and my neighbors have them now... I trust my fellow man.. if he steps over the line he needs to be punished... not before.

as for criminals having guns... if you let him out of prison then obviously he is ready to be excepted back into society... he should have all his rights restored... if you are uncomfortable with that then maybe too many crimals are being released too early? if he can't be trusted with a firearm then he is probly insane... the insane should not be allowed to have a firearm.

How would you suggest the old and infirm protect themselves? should only the young and strong rule by brute force? or... is it more civilized to use a tool to create equality?

Is england more civilized because it's homicides don't involve firearms (yet) but brutish men break into your home while you are cowering in your locked bedroom... smash and grab... beware pickpockets and thugs... or... is it more civilized for an ARMED 80 year old man to cause fear in the mind of the brute who avoids breaking into his home?

At one time you brits felt that it was an inalienable right of every FREE man to be able to arm himself and defend himself or others with whatever weapon he chose.... I say you went the wrong direction from there.... I say that as time goes on... I will be proven right.
lazs