Whats going on in Canada?

[moot]

[lazs2]

well.... if two women in new york city don't like guns then I guess that about does it for Americans eh?

Women are the fastest growing group of new gun owners and are the largest group of people enrolled in firearms courses.

and beet... there is no other weapon that would allow you to fend off 2 or 3 assailants... in a very few years, at your age, there will be no weapon short of a firearm that will allow you to fend off even one.

and... Switzerland has a very large amount of firearms and a very free use of them and a much lower crime rate than any UK country with draconian bans.

You are saying that you "feel" that more handguns in your country (less restrictions) would increase homicides.  Your history does not bear that out.  Your crime does seem to go up tho after every ban.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
and... Switzerland has a very large amount of firearms and a very free use of them and a much lower crime rate than any UK country with draconian bans.

Most of those are long guns/rifles. Very few handguns, and no social underclass - you know, the socio economic group you blame for most of the crime in the US.

You are saying that you "feel" that more handguns in your country (less restrictions) would increase homicides. Your history does not bear that out.

 It's never been tried, so how would history bear it out? Oh wait, there were a few guns around before WW1 - and 92 police were shot in the Metropolitan district in the years 1908-12. That number has gone down since.

As for crime going up - there are many factors involved, not just gun crime.

[NUKE]

There are plenty of countries that have outlawed guns, yet have very high levels of violence and murder.

And homicide rates are the only measure of homicides, not "gun" homicides verses all other forms of homicide.

How many alcohol related homicides does the UK have each year? A ban on alcohol should be considered, since it's impossible to allow law abiding people access to alcohol without supplying the criminals with it as well.

Alcohol caused more death and destruction in the UK each year than guns ever have, yet there is no weeping or cries for an alcohol ban. Beetle, if you follow your own logic, you would agree that alcohol should be banned.

[lazs2]

In switzerland people carry rifles around or have them by their side at resteraunts.... It was like that in kalifornia when I was a kid... we carried em on our bikes.   In Arizona and other states people still do with no harm.

States that allow concealled carry have lower crime here.   even the most pessimistic studies show that.   Your country never had high homicide rates but you did have some firearms freedoms... If you didn't... then why pass the 96 ban?

I really don't care why the bad guys are doing bad things... it is for others to debate... me having a handgun is not why they are bad men tho or even why they are dangerous.... me (and millions of others) haveing handguns and firearms is why they don't burglarize our homes in organized gangs while we cower under the bed like in your country.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by NUKE
Beetle, if you follow your own logic, you would agree that alcohol should be banned.

The thing that surprises me about you, NUKE, is that you completely understand the logic of not allowing wackjobs to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because the wackjobs can't be trusted. You have even started your own thread about this.

But what you don't seem to get is that it's the SAME logic as my not wanting guns to be freely available where I live.

Alcohol does not enter into it. People who abuse alcohol have made their own choice, whereas people who get shot are generally having their fate decided for them by the person holding the gun. Apples and oranges, my old fruit!

[NUKE]

People who use alcohol and then drive kill people. They also can get very violent and kill people, like after a soccer game perhapse.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
In switzerland people carry rifles around or have them by their side at resteraunts....  

I've never entered Switzerland, but I suspect that's BS. Have you been to Switzerland?

haveing handguns and firearms is why they don't burglarize our homes in organized gangs while we cower under the bed like in your country.

More BS. I have never been burgled. You HAVE been burgled. And.... I don't cower under my bed. I feel as threatened as I might at a Church bingo night. You feel the exact same way when you're in Britain, unarmed. You said so yourself.

[lazs2]

beet... you have nothing but a few anecdotal examples.... you "know of a place in scotland that you didn't get harmed" so therefore all the data on scotland is wrong...

You "know two women in new york who don't like guns so all of America wants to get rid of em"   so therefore all the data is wrong.

you have been to switzerland and didn't see firearms so therefore they don't have laws allowing the carrying of firearms to and from shooting events or in their homes.

You have not been burgled so therefore all the data that clearly shows that 50% of your burglaries are done when the people are home is...... wrong?  I have been burgled but... it was kids and..... I WASN'T HOME..  get it?  Your burglars come in teams... you would simply get stomped if you resisted.   I would simply shoot.   I have choice... you don't

Someone shows that the data is that Scotland is three times more dangerous than the U.S. and you show a picture of the scottish countryside?  

Burgled?  You live in a nice area.... so far you have been lucky.... i drive without seatbelts in my Lincoln... so far I have been lucky.   At least I don't post a picture of a deserted road to prove how smart it is to drive without a seatbelt.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
whereas people who get shot are generally having their fate decided for them by the person holding the gun. Apples and oranges, my old fruit!

People who get crushed by a drunk driver are generally having their fate decided for them by the drunk driving the car. Apples and apples, my old fruit!

[NUKE]

Originally posted by beet1e
The thing that surprises me about you, NUKE, is that you completely understand the logic of not allowing wackjobs to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because the wackjobs can't be trusted. You have even started your own thread about this.

But what you don't seem to get is that it's the SAME logic as my not wanting guns to be freely available where I live.

Alcohol does not enter into it. People who abuse alcohol have made their own choice, whereas people who get shot are generally having their fate decided for them by the person holding the gun. Apples and oranges, my old fruit!

You are saying that UK citizens are whack-jobs who can't be trusted? Fine, but why do you allow them access to aclohol when they clearly get drunk and drive, kill people and cause mayhem probably every day?

Apply your same logic to the problem of alcohol, otherwise you seem hypocritical.

[NUKE]

Well, off to work. On my drive home, I hope I don't drive close to any drunken drivers who may cross into my lane and kill me.

I don't mind driving next to armed drivers.

[lazs2]

yep nuke.... that is exactly what he is saying.... the peasants can't be trusted with firearms...  

There are allways reasons for people to not trust their fellow man with the means to defend himself.... none are noble.

1)   Ignorance..  they don't know anything about the subject except the negative foisted on em by....

2) royalty... upper class people fear the loss of control peasants with the means to defeat tyranny represent.  and... liberals who see armed citizens as a threat as firearms cause individual thinking and independence from the "protection" offered by a socialist/commie/facist big government.

3) projection.... many who fear guns say that crazy people would shoot at every fender bender or when they get angry...  they think this because they themselves commit cowardly violence when they are angry or drunk and project that.... if they do it...surely... everyone must?

4) back to two... people who can afford to stay out of high crime areas or afford bodyguards or extra police attention want a "safer" world where the bad guys have even less chance of getting through their formidable defenses...

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
beet... you have nothing but a few anecdotal examples.... you "know of a place in scotland that you didn't get harmed" so therefore all the data on scotland is wrong...

I've been all around Scotland - right up to Dunnet Head. I've been to islands you didn't even know existed. Most of Scotland is like the picture I posted.

Of course, not all of it is as pleasant. There's also this...

You "know two women in new york who don't like guns so all of America wants to get rid of em" so therefore all the data is wrong.

I said I knew at least two women who live alone in New York, neither of whom has a gun. You invented the rest.

you have been to switzerland

No, I said I had NOT.

Your burglars come in teams... you would simply get stomped if you resisted. I would simply shoot. I have choice... you don't

Yours come armed. Ours generally don't. But what would I know? I've never been burgled, whereas you understandably have an in depth knowledge of the subject. The closest I came to it was one Saturday evening at about 1130pm. I'd already gone to bed. 8 unoccupied houses in my neighbourhood got burgled by the same person - same M.O. The burglar skipped our house - presumably because some lights were still on and my car was on the driveway. So much for my "getting stomped" by the "team".

Someone shows that the data is that Scotland is three times more dangerous than the U.S.

I haven't seen any figures. Besides, it depends where you go. In 99% of Scotland, I get that Church bingo night feeling.

Mr. Toad!!

People who get crushed by a drunk driver are generally having their fate decided for them by the drunk driving the car. Apples and apples, my old fruit!

People who do that aren't generally in any condition to make decisions of any kind. The offence for such actions is causing death by dangerous driving. I don't know too many who get convicted of "murder".

Maybe we should ban alcohol, but then again we saw what happened when America tried it in the years 1926-1933. It didn't work out too well, did it? Biggest fillip that organised crime ever had.

You are saying that UK citizens are whack-jobs who can't be trusted?

That assessment certainly applies to a great many, just as it applies to a great many Americans.

Apply your same logic to the problem of alcohol, otherwise you seem hypocritical.

Apply your same logic to the problem of ayatollahs with NUKEs, otherwise you seem hypocritical.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
People who do that aren't generally in any condition to make decisions of any kind. The offence for such actions is causing death by dangerous driving. I don't know too many who get convicted of "murder".

But of course people who kill other people with a gun are many times "under the influence" of either alcohol or drugs and so aren't "generally in any condition to make decisions of any kind." So I guess we shouldn't count those gun deaths as "gun deaths" right?

No Beet, as Nuke said you're just being hypocritical again. Gun deaths = Bad/Unacceptable but Drunk Driver Deaths = OK/Acceptable.

You're OK with someone getting sloshed and driving a 3000 pound bullet going 70 mph and hitting an innocent bystander but you're outraged at someone under the influence that unleashing a 150 grain bullet going 1200 fps and hitting an innocent bystander.

I suspect those who have lost friends or family due to either causation would find your position hypocritical.

Maybe we should ban alcohol, but then again we saw what happened when America tried it in the years 1926-1933. It didn't work out too well, did it? Biggest fillip that organised crime ever had.

[/b]

Indeed, you are But just keep watching and see how the UK attempt to ban firearms works out for organized crime. As the years pass it'll become more clear to you my droogie.  
 
Oh...and be careful where you swing that butterknife. They're watching you, you know. And waiting, just waiting, to pounce.