Questions for Beetle

[straffo]

But except for the cops you would not likely run into someone with a real gun ... at least in France

[Jackal1]

What in the H was you thinking?
There is no guns within at least 2 or 4 galaxies of Beet.
  Guns would interfere with your common, recreational woman beater. Might run up on some friggen furner woman from the U.S. that would cap Yo ***> :0

[Mukiwa]

Originally posted by Sandman
Now, dicks have drive and clarity of vision, but they are not clever. They smell ***** and they want a piece of the action. And you thought you smelled some good old *****, and have brought your two small mincey studmuffingot balls along for a good old time. But you've got your parties mangled up. There's no ***** here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman. Like a salamander, you are having second thoughts. You are shrinking, and your two little balls are shrinking with ya. The fact that you've got "Replica" written down the side of your gun. (withdraws his gun) And the fact that I've got "Desert Eagle point five O" written on the side of mine, should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now... **** off.

hehe great movie

[beet1e]

Hey Africa!

I think the others have covered the replica gun issue. I understand that some real guns which have been deactivated (firing pin removed?) are sometimes reactivated for use in crimes.

Like Nashwan says, it's pretty much impossible to get a handgun permit these days, and it wasn't easy even before the 1997 gun "ban" , as you guys are fond of calling it.

Of about 14,000 homicides in the US in 2003, more than 9600 were carried out with guns - mostly handguns. Here, murderers have to resort to much less efficient means - sharp instruments etc., or not bother at all, so the number of homicides is much less - about 750 annually, of which about 70 will be by guns as Nashwan says.

I'm pretty sure that gun owners in the UK would form an extreme minority. Most people don't feel any need to own a gun. But as Nashwan says, we could own a shotgun - if we kept it in a locked safe like the one Lazs has in his back room.

Whether it's better to be armed in an armed society, or unarmed in an unarmed society is a matter of personal preference. I feel safe in my daily life without a gun, and I would not want to feel compelled to carry a gun just to feel safe, which is what many posters on this board do.

But which is better - armed or unarmed? In New Orleans this week, we hear of armed looters carrying out their illegal acts, and of idiots with guns firing upon the very people trying to carry out rescue operations. Compare that with London on July 7th - we had a tragedy of our own that day, as four bombs exploded, killing and maiming many. But I do not recall any incidents of Londoners firing on the police or rescue services.

Some people like to think that being armed represents "more freedom". In South Africa, it is legal to own a gun, and many people do. Partly because there are so many guns available there, it's not surprising that the homicide rate in South Africa is on a par with that of the USA. But do the people feel they have more freedom? The white middle classes live in compounds surrounded by 8ft walls, and it's not safe to be out at night.  That's not my idea of freedom.

Guns = more freedom? Well, South Africans are giving up their gun owning rights, and are flocking to Britain in droves. Funny that...

[Skydancer]

I'm with you beet my socialist brother!:lol ( in the world according to Lazs anyhow! )

[indy007]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I've seen those.  I applaud Airsoft on the one hand for their talent in making air guns that look real.  

You kinda lose your enthusiasm for the realism when you're handcuffed, sitting on the curb while the police are searching your SUV.

It was funny the first 2 times, by the third it had gotten pretty annoying.

edit: Should point out that my paintball guns have gotten my car searched twice as many times as my airsoft guns... always got the same reason "well somebody paintballed the local (fill in the blank)"

[lazs2]

this is hillarious.... nashwan knows that 48% of the guns used in crimes are fake?   They catch every criminal in england and then what.... either find the gun on em or .... or... ask em what they used?

If a gun is fake and you don't know it... is it less dangerous or traumatic to the victim?   A fake gun is only effective on sheep that are not allowed to defend themselves with real firearms... the whole fake gun thing is proof that your policies don't work.... even a fake gun is more than your populace can deal with.

england.... nothing really counts except the fact that you haven't protected anyone by giving up your right to defend yourself... argue that violent crime has gone way up or gone down a little because of the way you manipulate the numbers.... doesn't matter.... it hasn't changed enough to justify it by anyones standards... by a free mans standards... no reduction is enough..

Vermont and switzerland and israel... lots of guns there.... pretty much unrestricted.... less gun crime than the restricted areas of the U.S..... does that mean that we should be going that direction?  

Name a gun law in the U.S. that has been proven to make people safer?   I can surely point to some places here where it is indeed very unsafe even tho guns are all but banned.   Vermont has no restrictions.... Is it the wild west?  is it as dangerous as say detroit or chicago or new york city where guns are banned?   Is it more unsafe to live in than the whole state of Ma. that has severe gun restrictions?

What are you guys using in place of logic and common sense to get through the day?   Are you afraid to travel to America or switzerland or the state of Vermont?

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
What are you guys using in place of logic and common sense to get through the day?   Are you afraid to travel to America or switzerland or the state of Vermont?

I have already explained once. You have it backwards with Vermont. You seem to believe that Vermont has low crime because there are no gun restrictions. The fact is that it's the other way round - there has never been the need for supplementary gun laws because crime has always been low. Why's that? Because crime is concentrated in densely populated urban areas - large cities where there's a mix of crime, drugs, gangs, ethnic minorities etc. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the three states with your three largest cities do not allow concealed weapons, and may explain why it's not permitted to own a gun for self defence in Washington DC.

Now compare that with Vermont, which doesn't have any large cities. Its largest city is Burlington, with a population of ~40,000 and less than 800 blacks. The ingredients for a major crime wave just aren't there.

I've never been to Switzerland, but it's the same deal - no ethnic mixing, no social underclass - and no idiots who would shoot the people trying to rescue them if they got into trouble.

[lazs2]

soo... it is ehtnic peoples that cause crime and whenever you have people of different races you must disarm the entire rest of the country?   How does that figure with lilly white england and it's 97% white population?   Also... if there was no crime to begin with... why would you ban guns?  How has englands homicide rate dropped since any gun ban?   If it hasn't.... then why would your government bother?   or perhaps....

your people voted to ban guns on their own?

lazs

[Skydancer]

When are you going to understand we didn't vote for a gun ban. Our Govt tightened up the already pretty tough rules in light of a few serious shooting incedents. After WW2 we have never had the kind of gun use or ownership you guys had. We haven't lost any freedoms we just tightened up the already existing regulations. The UK does not have a "gun ban" we just don't find the need to carry arms and most of us quite like it that way.

Its realy funny that you think we are a nation of soft lily livered socialists. I've a sneeky feeling that the rest of Europe might not share that view. One of the things we do best as a nation is travel round the world kicking crud out of other people! sadly.

[lazs2]

thank you for making my point... of course you didn't vote to ban guns... you had no rights so the government told you what was best for you.... your gun owners turned in their guns like good little sheep..  there was no rights and no democracy involved.

In australia I believe the figure is like 4% of the guns were turned in.... they are still out there.... stashed away... illegaly...good for you aussies.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
if there was no crime to begin with... why would you ban guns?  How has englands homicide rate dropped since any gun ban?   If it hasn't.... then why would your government bother?

Because there was gun crime in the years before the 1920 Firearms Act was passed. 6 police officers were shot and killed in the years 1908-1912, and nearly 100 more were shot and wounded in the same period. Consideration had been given to banning guns before WW1, but when WW1 occurred one assumes that other more pressing matters were given priority. With WW1 over, it was realised that with many of the serving WW1 soldiers having come from the criminal classes, there would be a flood of guns coming back to the country in criminal hands. So it was decided that action was needed.

I'm like SkyDancer - I have no regrets about how things turned out. At least we don't have gangs of armed looters shooting at the police. And when we had some fairly major flooding a few years ago, it wasn't necessary to send in the SAS with orders to shoot to kill.

[lazs2]

hmm.... so you didn't ban guns to protect people but to protect the government and it's forces?   Or maybe I read that wrong.... a few cops were shot so that was a good enough reason to take away the rights of millions?

or maybe you really were saying that you banned guns because of their potential for harm even tho there was no proof of this?

How would you explain all the subsequent further bans then?   more fear?  

no problem during your flooding?  that's nice.   Would you say that our having guns is causing the looting?   my having guns is causing people to loot?   what are you saying?   Maybe you are saying that if a government rules with an iron hand then crime will drop.... like in soviet russia?   no... that can't be it since your crime has gone up (or stayed the same depending on how you juggle the numbers).

Do you really think your government banned guns to help you?

lazs

[Sandman]

Hey look guys... another lively discussion between Beet1e and Lazs2 about gun control.


Watch closely, otherwise you might miss a new point in this neverending debate.

[beet1e]

Lazs - yes, a few cops were shot, and it was realised that the problem would get a whole lot worse post WW1 unless action was taken. Given that only 2 cops have been shot and killed from 1984 to the present, I think TPTB got it right. They only had to look to America and the Wild West to know how it would turn out if they did nothing.

no problem during your flooding? that's nice. Would you say that our having guns is causing the looting? my having guns is causing people to loot? what are you saying?

I'm saying that your country's policy of arming everyone who wants to be armed, including criminals and idiots is a factor which has led to gangs of armed criminals and looters in the streets of New Orleans. I'm not saying that guns change law abiding folks into criminals or idiots, but I am saying that guns make criminals and idiots into much more dangerous criminals and idiots.

You have in the past cited the number of people killed by guns each year as a pittance, and a price worth paying for the right to bear arms. So I don't suppose you're too concerned that a few National Guardsmen may lose their lives in New Orleans in the coming weeks as they attempt to restore order. After all, their lives form part of that price.