Author Topic: No (more) guns please - we're British (Read 6686 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #195 on:** October 22, 2004, 08:28:34 AM »

spook... again... it matters not what you believe if you have no data or, worse yet, the real data makes what you believe... simply wrong. You are using emotion to try to combat real facts and are coming off really badly.

we have everyone admiting that the U.S. is the most murderous country in the world (one of the most) and yet.... we see that when the citizens are given the right to carry concealled... millions of them.... they are the most law abiding group in the country... Where they exist crime goes down.

we see private citizens stopping school shootings but yet we see the shootings increase when we pass stricter gun laws and disarm any potential help.

we have 50-60 million homes with guns in them (as widewing points out) yet.... we are too PC and have too liberal of an agenda to allow the NRA or CMP (civilian markmanship program) to teach GUN SAFETY in schools...

I don't really care if you don't get it in england... I think you are too ingrained with the thought that you have only the rights the government see fit to give you and that your fellow man is an idiot in need of taking care of.

chortle... in two weeks any of a number of places in the U.S. could make you confident and competent and safe with pistol, shotgun and rifle. The queen is wrong... you are a capable human.

I will be interested in how these imported criminals with nothing to lose will be convinced that the queen is right and give up their guns... the future of both our countries gun legeslation will be fun to watch. In the case of englant tho... they can't go any farther. soon they will be subjects surrounded by armed government and police and armed criminals.... oh well... yu can allways hide under the bed.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #196 on:** October 22, 2004, 08:36:03 AM »

and beetle... I will concede that you personally are happy that the rights of your countrymen have been taken away. That is not the point.

I do not drink... booze does nothing but cause problems for the country and for me.... If I never see another witty and charming drunk I won't be the least bit unhappy about it. But... I do not feel that I have the right to trample on my countrymens right to drink.

What you are advocating is the very worst of democracy... the majority of your people think that guns are too dangerous for the law abiding to own even tho they have done little or no harm (one school shooting by a nut fer christs sake???)

you can keep your idea of democracy.

spook uses another tact... it is that only he and the people he designates... the elite... have rights everyone else is too stupid and must depend and hope that the elite will have the time and inclination to help.

maverick hit it on the head... it's just that spooks head is in a place that is well protected from the blow.... still... his asscheeks gotta sting.

lazs

Dowding · « **Reply #197 on:** October 22, 2004, 08:42:02 AM »

Lazs, you will never, ever listen to anyone who actually lives in England. You try to make the point that we will soon be defenceless in the face of an armed government as if every house in Britain had a firearm before the ban. That simply wasn't the case. Gun ownership was absolutely miniscule. By your definition we've always been at the mercy of our government... and that didn't stop us carving out the biggest Empire ever seen or being responsible for some of the most radical innovations in technology, business or and society itself. There was no stifling of creativity and at every stage of history, Britain was far more liberal than her neighbours.

I think your anti-British mentality clouds everything you say and you'll do anything to support your dellusions.

beet1e · « **Reply #198 on:** October 22, 2004, 08:49:52 AM »

Quote

oh well... yu can allways hide under the bed.

I feel no need to hide under the bed. And neither do I feel the need to keep a loaded .45 beside it.

Quote

What you are advocating is the very worst of democracy... the majority of your people think that guns are too dangerous for the law abiding to own even tho they have done little or no harm (one school shooting by a nut fer christs sake???)

The reason it's only been ONE school shooting is probably because of the relative absence of guns.

I don't think guns would be too dangerous for the law abiding, but there's just NO WAY to arm the law abiding citizens without criminals also becoming armed. I'll take the status quo, thanks - warts and all.

lazs2 · « **Reply #199 on:** October 22, 2004, 08:54:09 AM »

ok... so the reason there were no school shootings before the one was because there were guns? and... if there is another shooting it will be because there are no guns?

dowding is right on at least one thing... you had no shootings to speak of before the ban and you don't have any to speak of now.

I say you took away your countrymens rights for nothing.

and dowding... are you saying that you are the only representative of england? that you represent the thoughts of all your countrymen? In the short time I was there I found a few who agreed with me.... they seemed british... had the accent and wierd clothes and all...

lazs

deSelys · « **Reply #200 on:** October 22, 2004, 08:56:38 AM »

I'm sorry Lazs, but you are only partially right:

-Concealed carriers are law abiding: ok
-Basic shooting and safe handling can be taught in a couple of weeks: ok
-the possibility to face a person carrying a concealed gun has a deterrent effect upon criminals: ok

However, what can't be taught other than by intense training is the ability to perform good judgement and accurate actions under heavy stress. A person allowed to carry a gun, even if safe under normal circumstances, can make much collateral damage by trying to solve a stressful situation.

The problem of a school shooting is an 'easy' one: on one hand, you have a complete mad murdering innocents. You're armed. You HAVE to do something to make it stop.

OTOH, you're in a bank and a couple of robbers come in and calmly hold everybody at gunpoint. They seem to act 'professionally'. Everybody is facing a lethal danger, but nobody has been hurt yet. If you draw your gun and try to take down both robbers, you put at risk the life of many innocents. However, the thieves may very well take an hostage to cover their retreat, or just shoot down everybody when they leave...no witnesses. What do you do?

Which brings me to the question: why would some people want to carry a gun when it restricts their freedom (as you said no bars, no alcohol, no sporting events...) and is a serious responsibility?

- Because they are competent and feel that they be a part of public security? ok for me.
- Because they feel threatened? With objective reasons (ok) or are they just a bit paranoid? Hmmmm...
- Because they suffer from an inferiority complex? Ouch....
- Because they want to be like John McCain? Awwww...

If you've been witness of road accidents, try to remember how many citizens present on the scene acted competently and efficiently, how many just stayed in the way a bit shocked doing nothing, and how many turned to be a real hazard (putting themselves close to traffic, smoking near a turned over car, or trying to move or 'fix' a seriously wounded person without any knowledge nor objective reason). Would you like those people to carry a gun next to you?

You said yourself that recoil disengages the brain the first times that somebody shoots a gun. What do you think that bullets flying around will do to his reasoning the first time a concealed carrier is shot at?

Maverick · « **Reply #201 on:** October 22, 2004, 08:59:30 AM »

Spook,

You just made my point eloquently. Thanks. Here is the part I am refering to in your post.

"Joe Schmoe" must be monitored and protected from himself as he MAY do something wrong. The general population is incapable of being responsible for themselves so we must insure they are held to someone elses idea of responsibility even if they have done nothing wrong.

Quote:
At no time, have I mentioned criminals with guns. Ive spoken about the population as a whole.

Not your everyday stereotypical criminal but your everyday Joe Schoe, takes a packed lunch to work, citizen who's button has suddenly been pressed by whatever motivates the act at the time.

Again, the human variable. A criminal is clear in his intent. He can be monitored and acted upon prior to commiting an act when known. Joe Schmoe by accident or design can not. MAY

Beetle,

I am quite aware you are not "suffering" by not having a gun. I have never said you needed one. I also would not try to require that you have one. What I find reprehensible is that you feel perfectly justified imposing your desire on others who have committed no criminal act.

As far as the "feeling safe" situation is concerned, feelings are by nature subjective and everyone has their own "comfort level". It remains that (IMO) imposing your comfort level on others who have done nothing to warrant your control of them is hardly the mark of a free and democratic society. Manipulation of statistics by your government agency to support that position is hardly indicative of a trustworthy organization.

lazs2 · « **Reply #202 on:** October 22, 2004, 09:12:21 AM »

exactly mav... those millions of concealled carry guys are a ticking time bomb and just because they have been law abideing for decades....

de seleys.... I think we actually do agree. I think that we may have not made things quite clear tho. I say that in a few weeks... and with proper refresher courses... anyone can be made competent, confident and capable with firearms.... Thats really about all cops get...

that is plenty so far as defending against the criminal and such.... It is in no way enough time to make said citizen a worthy opponent for trained elite armed forces... it is in no way enough time to make them usefull to trained elite forces. Fortunately... they will be facing garden variety criminals and not elite forces.

your training is on a completely different level for a much different target.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #203 on:** October 22, 2004, 09:15:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
dowding is right on at least one thing... you had no shootings to speak of before the ban and you don't have any to speak of now. I say you took away your countrymens rights for nothing.

Dowding is right about another thing too. You never listen to anyone who actually lives in England. Nothing got taken away. Gun ownership has always been relatively minuscule, before 1997 and since 1997. You're fond of reminding us of the gun ban. What are you saying? Are you suggesting I could have gone down to a local gun shop in 1996 to buy a handgun?

Lazs, talking about the gun situation in Britain --->

lazs2 · « **Reply #204 on:** October 22, 2004, 09:18:58 AM »

are you saying that there was no ban in 96 and that no citizens rights were taken away?

lazs

Dowding · « **Reply #205 on:** October 22, 2004, 09:27:07 AM »

So these English types you talked to told you gun ownership was widespread in the UK?

deSelys · « **Reply #206 on:** October 22, 2004, 09:29:10 AM »

Lazs, I'm no elite. I was just lucky to get my training when the focus was reevaluated from just punching holes in paper targets to solve tactical situations. The change was not all benefit as we shot a lot less than the previous students.
So we were better trained to take cover, reload, clear jams and act as a team while the pure shooting left to be desired.
I was lucky to have some previous shooting experience before and I rated ok. Some colleagues were reacting correctly but had real trouble to hit anything....

During this training (in 1995), I've had the pleasure to meet Mark Zimmerman who demonstrated the Simunition FX upon us (and left us with a few bruises and some good stories...).

To make my point clearer too, I want to add that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to try and pass the concealed carry exam. But it wouldn't be easy to get this permit.

lazs2 · « **Reply #207 on:** October 22, 2004, 11:56:04 AM »

dowding.... no they did not tell me that gun ownership was widespread in england.... what they told me was that they envied my freedom to own and shoot as many firearms as I do..... I took that to mean that they felt their rights were being trampled on.

deselys... agreed... I simply don't feel that all that much training is required to have a cc permit. safe handling and the law and some close range work should be enough.... so far... it has been. Most cc guys don't expect to run into criminal masterminds or organized terrorists... even if they do... they mostly want to just get out of the situation. They know that they will mostly run into the junkie mugger or convienence store bandit who is as afraid as his victims.
lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #208 on:** October 22, 2004, 12:06:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Don't for one second believe that if we legalised guns and armed the public, only the law abiding would have guns. That's pure fantasy. [/B]

I certainly never said or implied that only the law abiding would have guns.
Quite the opposite. The way it stands now the only people that will NOT have guns is the law abiding citizen. In other words, a free, unthreatened ticket to do whatever he pleases without a chance for interference.
The fantasy comes in with you believing bans/laws will keep the criminal from having guns. You are just starting to see the tip of the iceburg. As I have said before, you cannot wish it away.
Your hearing a loud whistle and a rumbling noise while standing on the tracks and you are still looking around for any explanation other than a train is about to make a pancake out of you because you are in denial of it.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #209 on:** October 22, 2004, 12:17:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
OTOH, you're in a bank and a couple of robbers come in and calmly hold everybody at gunpoint. They seem to act 'professionally'. Everybody is facing a lethal danger, but nobody has been hurt yet. If you draw your gun and try to take down both robbers, you put at risk the life of many innocents. [/B]

You would play Ole Billy hell trying to draw a gun from an empty holster.
Concealed carry in a bank is illegal.