More Gun control???

[lazs2]

so... the population of england and whales IS 52 million or... one sixth of ours even if you leave out the 6 or 7 thousand blacks who commit allmost 2 thirds of all the homicides... guns or no..  no matter what... you are talking maybe none to 1 or 2 more murders per 100,000 in the U.S than in england and whales (thought they were all the same).

Read yur home office report... seems that reported crime was indeed going down in the years before your government decided you couldn't be trusted with guns... rather dramaticaly too... then after the 96 gun ban it started to go up again.  

even on a tiny little island you can't make it work... even with no borders and no place to run your murders are close4 to ours.

jose padilla.... used BBC as a source... this is a very bad man..  violent felony record as long as your arm including shootings.   terrorist ties with al queda.   This is one dog that needs to be put down... but... He should be charged IMO... still... since this scumbag is the only example of an "American citizen" being held withoput charges.... I am not too worried.   Apparently the army of watchdog lawyers and lefties arent either since they seem to be ignoring this.

What makes you subjects in my eyes is the fact that your government takes away your right to defend against them and other subjects.

And for what?  you have no dramatic decrease in homicides nor do you have a decrease in crime... you have burglars robbing you while you cower under the covers 50% of the time.

If all guns were illiminated in the U.S.  there is no way that murders would go down by the number of firearms murders... I doubt it would go down at all.  I don't want to get into a knife fight in any case.  even if they went down a fes thousand a year ... a portion of 1 per 100.000... how would that be worth the 2-3 million crimes that are stopped by firearms every year?   if even one percent of those thwarted crimes would have ended in murder... we would see an increase in murder of 20-30 thousand murders a year... that is with just one percent.

states that enact right to carry laws show a decrease in both homicides and violent crime.  

If you had right to carry laws I bet your crime rate would drop too.   I bet murders would be down too.   Just like here, I bet no one with a concealed carry permit would be convicted of murder with a firearm.

millions of Americans have permits and they prevent crime not cause it... they carry handuns concealled.   what is the reason to stop this practice?   not enough crime?   There is no logical reason.

The U.S will allways have one or two more murders per hundred thousand than the subjects of the UK...  guns have nothing to do with it or... IMO and the opinion of most... guns cause the rate to be lower than it would be without em.

you were conned... you gave up your human rights for nothing.

lazs

[Curval]

Wow...gun ownership is a "human right".

Odd how some people will argue up and down that education and health benefits are not human rights, but gun ownership is.

I guess it is all just a matter of priorities.

Curious though lazs...how many times have you personally used a gun to protect yourself?

[lazs2]

being able to defend yourself from those who would do you harm is a human right.   In the past it was the ability to carry swords... now it is the ability to carry own firearms... who knows what it will be in the future.

oh... as for personally?  I would just as soon not say.   Lets just say that I would hope that it never occurs in the future.   There is one record of me stopping a burglar in fairly recent times.   Probly coulda done it without the gun but who knows?   It is habit at this point and a lack of joyful ignorance that causes me to feel more secure with firearms thanh without.  In the "old days" I knew too many people that were sociopaths to ever think the world is better off not being able to defend against them.  I also believe that if they thought most of us were unarmed they would be a lot more violent and commit a lot more crime.

But... in the end... I enjoy guns so it is a moot point.   They are old friends... extremely dependable and well made tools... some are history and some are art and some are just tools or sources of plinking and target shooting entertainment.   working on them and reloading the ammo is as fun to me as working on Hot Rods.

lazs

[Curval]

Please stick to one argument then.  Is your ability to carry guns a human right (visa vis self defense) or is it a human right to own guns to have fun with?

[lazs2]

also... education and health benifiets are not human rights.  they are the oppossite.  Forcing one person to pay for another is not a human right.

Firearms on the other hand... you do not pay for me to have firearms.  No one is asking that you buy anyone a gun (police and military excepted) to defend themselves.   We are simply asking for the right to do so.

If you are talking about passing laws that would prohibit education or healthcare then you have a point... education does become a human right when it is forbiden such as it was forbiden to slaves in the U.S.

clear?

lazs

[lazs2]

I answered the question... it is a human ritght to be able to defend yourself.   Having "fun with guns" is a side benifiet.  Simply being a human right does not preclude people enjoying that right.

lazs

[Toad]

From William Blackstone

BUT, with regard to the rise and original of our present civil prohibitions, it will be found that all forest and game laws were introduced into Europe at the same time, and by the same policy, as gave birth to the feudal system; when those swarms of barbarians issued from their northern hive, and laid the foundation of most of the present kingdoms of Europe, on the ruins of the western empire.

For when a conquering general came to settle the economy of a vanquished country, and to part it out among his soldiers or feudatories, who were to render him military service for such donations; it behoved him, in order to secure his new acquisitions, to keep the rustici or natives of the country, and all who were not his military tenants, in as low a condition as possibel, and especially to prohibit them the use of arms.

Nothing could do this more effectually than a prohibition of hunting and sporting: and therefore it was the policy of the conqueror to reserve this right to himself, and such on whom he should bestow it; which were only his capital feudatories, or greater barons.

And accordingly we find, in the feudal constitutions,15 one and the same law prohibiting the rustici in general from carrying arms, and also proscribing the use of nets, snares, or other engines for destroying the game. This exclusive privilege well suited the martial genius of the conquering troops, who delighted in a sport16 which in its pursuit and slaughter bore some resemblance to war.

Vita omnis, (says Caesar, speaking of the ancient Germans) in venationibus atque in studiis rei militaris consistit.17 And Tacitus in like manner observes, that quotiens bella non ineunt, multum venatibus, plus per otium transigunt.18

And indeed, like some of their modern successors, they had no other amusement to entertain their vacant hours; they despising all arts as esseminate, and having no other learning, that was couched in such rude ditties, as were sung at the solemn carousals which succeeded these ancient huntings.

And it is remarkable that, in those nations where the feudal policy remains the most uncorrupted, the forest or game laws continue in their highest rigor. In France all game is properly the king's; and in some parts of Germany it is death for a peasant to be found hunting in the woods of the nobility.19

Now tell me Curval about the tradition of hunting and use of arms on Bermuda. Not gunrunning; the USE of arms for subsistence, sport and pleasure.

Some countries have it, some don't. We do.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Wonko_the_Sane
I based my assesment of the M16 based solely on reliability. If a weapon is not reliable it is a POS. Just like the M9 9mm. slide jams ALOT..stovepipes ALOT.

I'll never own a Beretta, i was forced to carry this "firearm" (.40 Cougar) and had it stovepipe on the range.  Sorry, but I prefer my HK USP .45.  

Karaya

Yes, the M16 needs to be kept clean.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
You still need a bullet in the gun.  You still need a condition were that weapon happens to be pointed at somone OR you have to have a condition were somone is not properly trained on firearm safety.

People who dont know how to drive kill people every day on the highway and its never the cars fault.

That would be a Cartridge sir.  

Karaya

[Masherbrum]

I would rather have the gun and NOT need it, then to not have the gun and NEED IT.

Karaya

[Curval]

Let me just say this, it is not myself or any Europeans that are attempting to deprive Americans of their right to bear arms.  That gentlemen is being done by your fellow Americans.

So, all this talk of Europeans and Bermudians being "subjects" etc is all a backlash against what is really efforts being made within your OWN country to take them away from you.

Any talk of feudalism and "King's subjects" is just nonesense.

You guys seem to think that I am somehow less free than you are, but as I have pointed out in the past YOU guys are mere subjects to the whims of your taxation departments than I ever am with respect to issues relating to guns.

So we have the Big 3 reasons for gun ownership in the United States:

1.  Self protection
2.  Hunting
3.  Fun

In Bermuda we have never had any hunting in my lifetime, but back in the day. when your country was still in "diapers" guns were used extensively to hunt wild hogs and birds in order to feed the colonists.

Now there is none.  No hogs, no hunting.  There just isn't any room.  But Europeans do alot of hunting according to recent articles posted by Ripsnort.  One article even discussed the gun culture of Europe as being as pervasive as the US.  So, I don't understand why Euros have "given up" anything in this regard.

Bermuda has a very rich history with respect to guns.  Hell, our tiny little island was fighting the Spanish and French in the Carribean before you guys even had a country.  

Self protection....my 9-iron has worked well so far.  Infact I've never had cause to use it.  

Fun...well, I could join the gun club, but I have better things to do.

So, tell me again.  Why am I more of a subject than you?  Don't post things written in Olde English to back-up what you say either.  Those days are long gone.

[Toad]

I feel that explains the viewpoints pretty well.

We see a lot of the English and/or Euros saying "I've never seen or felt the need for a gun". I think that has its roots in history. They just didn't have the same culture with respect to firearms that the US did. Thus, they see no need and simply can't understand our point of view.

And what are those roots? Simply this:

it behoved him, in order to secure his new acquisitions, to keep the rustici or natives of the country, and all who were not his military tenants, in as low a condition as possibel, and especially to prohibit them the use of arms

[/b]

Right after the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech (which most Euros don't understand either) our founders made sure the Government wasn't going to be allowed to do THAT again.

[Curval]

So?

Is that why I am more of a subject than you are?

Ironically if I were to produce a gun in public here and got myself arrested, I would spend about the same time in jail as you would if you didn't pay Uncle Sam his taxes.

So...can we just agree that we are BOTH just subjects?

[Toad]

I think you have me confused with Laz. I'm not the one tossing "subject" around.

I'm just saying that all this non-US "I've never felt the need for a gun" stuff seems to have its roots in their history. They were never allowed to have them really. Certainly not in the way that we had them and they became ingrained in our way of life.

It's almost as if they were telling James Irwin or David Scott that they never felt the need for a Lunar Rover so they don't see why Irwin or Scott would have ever needed one either.

You're attempt to link taxes, guns and punishment for violating laws leaves me a bit confused. Don't all governments punish their citizens for violating laws? Does it matter which laws? Not really. Only the degree of punishment varies.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Toad
You're attempt to link taxes, guns and punishment for violating laws leaves me a bit confused. Don't all governments punish their citizens for violating laws? Does it matter which laws? Not really. Only the degree of punishment varies.

Correct.  This makes all of us subjects of our governments.  Yes, this is more for lazs' benefit than yours...he is the one who seems to think his freedom is somehow greater than mine.  He is wrong.

...and I am just as confused as you are with respect to your lunar rover anaology.