Author Topic: More Gun control??? (Read 5609 times)

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #255 on:** August 20, 2004, 09:14:02 AM »

All I can say is thank god I live in Australia. You guys are nuts! If it isnt Politics its guns. None of you should have so much as a kids plastic cutlery set in your possession!

God Bless Australia and death by boomerang to all those who oppose her.

lazs2 · « **Reply #256 on:** August 20, 2004, 09:23:53 AM »

beetle.. you just have a different view of the thing than us... yu claim that if the nomad doesn't need a fly fiwshing rod then he is free wether his government bans them or not. He may not want one this week but he is not free if his government bans him from having one.

I would not use a, a trepan?... but I would not like someone telling me I would be arressted if i found one at an antique shop and put it over my mantel or just collected different types of em.. see the di8fference? people in the U.S. are free to not own guns.

and..Having the right to defend yourself is a human right. fortuantely my government agreed that this was so over 200 years ago.

dep[ending on where you live... in england you are highly unlikely ot very likely to be burglaraized... that is the same here but... in enland there is a 50 50 chance it will be a "hot" strongarm one... you will be home.. they will rob you while you cower under the covers thanks to your government. I do not want that for here.

I want strong gun laws for penalties for commiting crimes with guns but lax concealled carry laws... I want to know that if there are ten countrymen in the crowd that at least one of em will be armed and trained. I like it even better if that person is me.

Staying vigilant and armed against tyranny or agression is no more "fear" than putting on your seatbelt is "fear". Less hassle too IMO. Sunscreen and earplugs and safety glasses.... All "fear"? perhaps but sensible.

The real fear comes into play when the anti gun crowd says that they don't trust their neigbor to own a firearm... the same guy they ruib fenders with in 2 ton charriots at 80 mph on the freeway...or whose house allmost touches theirs?

The 9 iron sham (or baseball bat or whatever)is a pretty typical short sighted response from anti gun males who are in fairly decent shape and a little macho.. Truth is.. they leave out the weak gender and old and sick in their elite attitude... they also are naive in the fact that two or more agressors could make em eat their weapon of choice... in many cases... just one bad guy is more than a match for them and their makeshift weapon and they will do nothing but piss off the bad guy.

There is no way to tell how many lives are saved every year in the U.S. by firearms but they are used 2-3 million times to prevent crime... if only a fraction of a percent of that agression would have turned to homicide (accidntal or not) then they have far outweighed any percieved danger.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #257 on:** August 20, 2004, 09:36:51 AM »

Beet, you just doing your typical dodge.

You don't need/use guns so you're fine with your country banning them.

Fine by me.

I definitely use guns and they are a major component in my favorite form of recreation. Further, my country's Constitution guarantees my right to have and use them.

Also fine by me.

It's not about the collecting of guns, the hunting with guns or the use of guns for personal defense (whether they are fired or not).

It's real simple. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not I have/own/use firearms. I make that choice.

You have no say in having/owning/using firearms; your government makes that choice for you.

You don't give a toss. Great! I know quite a few Englishmen who DO give a toss. Unfortunately they're in a minority now in the land that gave the world the Magna Carta.

Your line of reasoning basically is that if YOU don't have a personal use for an item, you're OK with the government banning it.

Kinda reminds me of Rev. Martin Niemoller's comments in 1945.

But I am happy that you're happy.

Curval · « **Reply #258 on:** August 20, 2004, 10:04:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
It's real simple. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not I have/own/use firearms. I make that choice.

From what I have read most of the whining that goes on regarding guns is directed at your own people (let's call them DEMOCRATS) trying to do precisely that - deprive you of those rights.

Quoted by lazs in another thread:

"The .50 is banned here in California."

It isn't Beet1e or myself.

I am beginning to understand lazs and Wrag tho. They live in fear and therefore feel the need to arm themselves.

Fine by me, just please don't shoot anyone by accident or in a crossfire when I visit your beautiful, but obviously very dangerous, country.

Thanks much.

lazs2 · « **Reply #259 on:** August 20, 2004, 10:36:03 AM »

curval... is it "living in fear" to use your seatbelt every single time you enter a vehicle? I don't consider my chances of needing a seat belt (most of the time) any more likely than needing a gun. "fear" is maybe not the right word. Think of em in the same class as saftey glasses and seatbelts. And... political power.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #260 on:** August 20, 2004, 10:48:56 AM »

Curv, are you being deliberately obtuse?

From my previous post:

Quote

Toad:

Note that YOU'RE the one floating the red herring about :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no-one from Europe or Bermuda is trying to take your guns away. Americans are doing that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen Laz saying that. I certainly haven't said that.

Visiting the country? Yes, we have more firearms death than Bermuda. However, most of those take place in areas which the average American avoids, let alone the Bermudan tourista.

We also have far, far more highway deaths than Bermuda.

Take those facts into account before you visit. It's a choice you make.

Nashwan · « **Reply #261 on:** August 20, 2004, 10:53:20 AM »

Quote

dep[ending on where you live... in england you are highly unlikely ot very likely to be burglaraized... that is the same here but... in enland there is a 50 50 chance it will be a "hot" strongarm one

About 50% of attempted burglaries (burglary definitions in England and Wales include attempted burglary) are "hot". However, the figure for successful burglary where someone knows the burgular is there are 25%, which includes about 5% "burglary artifice" where the burgular tricks his way in by pretending to be a meter reader, workman etc.

The figures in the US aren't included by the FBI, but the FBI does give a figure of 13% of all "robberies" being in a person's home. There is simply a different definition at work, with the US classifying burglary where the criminal threatens and steals from the victim at home as "robberies", whilst the British classify them as burglaries.

Regarding Britain not having enough black people to committ crime, the figures aren't broken down for murder, but they are for robbery.

In Bristol city centre, 62% of all robberies are by blacks and asians, in Birmingham it's 86%, 86% in Lambeth, 86% on the London Underground.

44% of all robberies in England and Wales are committed in London, which has 14% of the population.

Regarding the figure of 5 burgulars killed by homeowners for every homeowner killed by a burgular, the FBI actually keeps statistics on justifiable homicides too.

There were 564 justifiable homicides in the US in 2002. Again these are in addition to the 16,000 murders.

The police were responsible for 339 of them, private citizens 225.

That's for all circumstances.

96 people were murdered during burglaries alone.

That looks like the origin of the 5 to 1 figure to me, although of course the real story is that 225 citizens justifiably killed their attackers in ALL circumstances, whilst 96 were murdered during a burgulary, well over 1,000 during robberies.

And that's just a fraction of the total killings, over 6,000 out of 16,000 not being counted.

Curval · « **Reply #262 on:** August 20, 2004, 10:53:46 AM »

I believe it is the LAW that requires a seatbeat, not fear. Despite this law many continue to be ticketed for not wearing them. How that fits into your anology...I'm not sure.

You and Wrag have given very adequate descriptions of your fear of your government and various other incidents, including drive-by shootings, stabbings and a plethora of other violent episodes so I understand the fear you feel. It is OKAY to feel this way. You are good enough, strong enough and brave enough to admit it.

WTG.

Curval · « **Reply #263 on:** August 20, 2004, 10:56:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Curv, are you being deliberately obtuse?

yes.

Toad · « **Reply #264 on:** August 20, 2004, 10:58:39 AM »

Quote

All states except New Hampshire have seat belt use laws.

In most states these laws cover frontseat occupants only, although belt laws in 17 states and the District of Columbia cover all rear occupants too. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have primary enforcement of their belt laws, which means law enforcement officers can stop and give citations to motorists solely for not wearing them.

With secondary enforcement laws, officers may issue a citation only after stopping the vehicle for other traffic infractions.

"Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the state of New Hampshire .

Choice. I think you're a fool if you drive without wearing a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet.

But hey...... if you choose to be a fool, it's not my job to be your nanny.

beet1e · « **Reply #265 on:** August 20, 2004, 11:48:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
It's real simple. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not I have/own/use firearms. I make that choice.

You have no say in having/owning/using firearms; your government makes that choice for you.

With regard to firearms, you are correct to a certain extent. As you know yourself, we DO have game hunting with guns in England, and I could buy/own the type of gun used by your English hunting cronies - if I were so inclined.

But firearms is only one parameter in the "freedom" equation. In your country, the minimum legal drinking age is 21. Here, it is 18. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not our folks in the 18-20 age group can enter a pub/bar/restaurant for a drink. They make that choice. 18-20yr olds in America have no say in whether they can drink at bars; your government makes that choice for them.

In Holland, one can still make purchases at "head shops" - those establishments which sell drugs paraphernalia such as bongs, freebasing kits, rolling papers etc. Your government banned headshops in 1981.

Now, I accept that you probably have no desire to shop at headshops, or miss them in your own country now that they're gone. But let's just consider what you said about this, which was:

Quote

Your line of reasoning basically is that if YOU don't have a personal use for an item, you're OK with the government banning it.

You are not interested in shopping at headshops, and I am not interested in owning a gun. Seems balanced to me. Who's to say which form of "freedom" takes precedence over any other?

Deuce.

Curval · « **Reply #266 on:** August 20, 2004, 11:54:00 AM »

Nice lob.

The strawberries and cream is quite excellent this year.

lazs2 · « **Reply #267 on:** August 20, 2004, 02:39:06 PM »

curval... I agree with you that seatbelts should not be mandatory but...

Are you saying that if there were no law that you would not wear them? how bout a helmet on a motorcyle?

Isn't that "fear" driven? Is it fear or pragmatism? why is wearing a seatbelt any different than owning a gun for protection against agression so far as practicality is concerned? How bout a life jacket on a boat?

The analodgy is perfect. There should be no gun or seatbelt/helmet laws.... let each mans level of "fear" guide him... freedom.

lazs

wrag · « **Reply #268 on:** August 20, 2004, 02:39:17 PM »

LOL It's a cultural thing IMHO. That and a combination of the life one has led.

Yo Curval, I thank you sir for the compliment.

I've found when the name calling starts the name caller usually loses or is losing the argument.

Sadly the Dems seem to use this technique allot.

The drinking age is different in several states. Some allow drinking at 18 most don't.

Voting is another State set thing I think.

Age of consent is different in many states. 18 is general but some go as low as 14? Arkansas or Georgia I think.

Probably seems strange to someone in another country. States set some limits and the Feds set others.

CCW's are also State set.

You and Beet1e play kinda rough with your words LOL. Think you got Laz abit rilled.

Originally posted by Toad
"Curv, are you being deliberately obtuse?"

"yes."

I figured that LOL

Kinda was startin to look like neither of you was gonna give an inch AND you didn't want to no matter what we said.

LOL Trolling? OR ????????

I still think it's mainly a cultural thing. I also think that both Curval and Beet1e never intended that this discussion be won by anyone but themselves no matter what. And set out to do just that.

IMHO We are still talking apples to oranges.

Toad · « **Reply #269 on:** August 20, 2004, 06:07:04 PM »

Yep, Beet. There's a difference.

For example, if you smuggled in a Webley revolver, kept it in your car and got caught, what would be the punishment?

How would that compare to a US kid that got caught drinking under age and got a warning?

There sure is a difference.