Of Cars and Guns and the Nature of Man (quite long)

[AKDejaVu]

 

The point is, should those boys have been in a country with strict gun control laws, they would have had one heck of a hard time finding automatic weapons.

They didn't have automatic weapons.  They had semi-automatic weapons.  They also had pipe bombs.

Automatic weapons are only easy to get in the movies.

 

I'm not against guns. I am against the accessibilty of getting guns. If you make it that easy, you cannot expect everyone to be educated about them.

Actually, most people are for this wether they like to admit it or not.  The main problem comes from the snowball effect that comes from conceding one point.  Its not like everyone just stops and says "well, that's good enough for me".  They move on to the next one.

One side is fighting to hold on to rights.. the other is fighting to remove them.  Wich one needs to ease up a bit to get anything done?

AKDejaVu

[Dowding]

Two cliched sound-bites that don't really explain anything, Caveman.  

Just because something rhymes doesn't mean its worth two dimes.  

[Sparks]

 

originally quoted by Igloo
"Britian, Denmark, France, Canada...all of these countries have strict gun control laws. These countries also have low crime rates. Do you see this as a coincidence?.."

Errr pardon ????
Britain - yes lets see - no guns, no siree all gone - they have to be since Mr good policeman rounded them all up and destroyed them.....

violent crime increasing at the highest rate since records began.....
this last week or so so far we've had a crucial eye witness to a road rage attack shot in the head in his car in a Halfords (car accessory) parking lot, a man armed with a handgun takes hostages in a garden centre an holds them for nearly a day, oh yes an a mental patient (yes mental patient) in a hospital (yes IN a hospital) takes a hostage with a gun.

Yep - doing away with guns is working here alright.

When oh when are we going to realise that the ONLY problem we have is the high rate of criminal behaviour across the board.

If you think about it there could even be a more worrying conclusion here - the good and moral people who ban this and that "because access is too easy" are failing to realise that the criminals may just be smarter than them because they know where and how to get the weapons and how not to get caught with them. Do any of you who advocate a no gun policy, and live in the UK for instance, know where to get a gun ??? - I doubt it but they are clearly available. And if you do why aren't you telling the authorities?? - maybe scared that in this secure society of ours you may get killed and no-one will be around to defend you?? Remember the eye witness shot in his car I just told you about ?? well he was the key witness to put a career gangster away for murder after seeing this guy kill someone on the side of the M25 after the victim cut him up in traffic. Apparently eye witnesses said he plead for his life before the hit man executed him - my guess if he had a 9mm in his glove box (licensed, registered and instructed in it's use by the police because the police considered him in danger) then he may have been alive today and his family would still have a father.

I refer to my first post to show you the root of this latest gun death:-
1. A career criminal with no respect or feelings for anyone else has an incident with someone on a busy motorway - his reaction to this is to stop the guy and stab him to death on the side of the road.
2. The witness to the attack steps forward and is willing to testify in court to put him away - a man braver than me.(remember no death penalty here or even whole of life sentaences here in jolly old UK - this guy will be out in 10-15)
3. He is given no full time protection and in our morally correct society is unable to even own a gun at home to defend himself.
4. In the course of a family shopping trip another career criminal executes him with ..... A GUN !!! lord help us the guns have killed another !!!!
5. The career ganster in custody who obviously ordered the killing is "questioned by police".
6. Career ganster now stands good chance of getting off murder charge on both counts due to lack of evidence and two more innocent families fall victim to our wonderfull justice system.

Aren't we glad we don't have the evil scourge of guns hanging over us - after all this career gangster will be a changed man after his brush with the law and when you next meet him on the road he won't stop and stab you but wave cheerily and beckon you on...

GET REAL PEOPLE !!!!!

ahhh - what's the point........

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
I don't think anyone against guns believes Columbine was purly a gun issue.  The point is, should those boys have been in a country with strict gun control laws, they would have had one heck of a hard time finding automatic weapons.

DJV already pointed this out, so I'll nae do it again.
But if they couldna found guns they'd have had more, and probably larger, home made bombs.  See above about the fuel oil/fertilizer in a previous post of mine.

Dowding they may be cliched, but they're still truisms, and I was in a goofy mood when I posted them, hence to real meat to the post  

DJV I think it's the anti-gunners turn to lighten up.  Most of my friends had no problem with the Brady bill.  I kind of wish they'd added something about attending a mandatory training class before you can pickup/purchase your firearm.  Hell I'd even be quite if they added a 1% tax to guns/ammo/reloading supplies to pay for it.

BradyII and it's lists of bans was a different story.

Santa they know right where my car is if they ever decide they want to take it.  But as has already been pointed out in this thread, it's economically unfeasible to do away with the car.  So instead they go after another inanimate object to make themselves feel better for saving lives and so they dinnae have to admit that society itself is broken, and that they're a part of said broken society.

I could also go on and on about seat belt laws and helmet laws (both of which I'm verra against).

[AKDejaVu]

 

DJV I think it's the anti-gunners turn to lighten up.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Unfortunately, they've spent the last 20 years instilling defensive reactions that this will be extremely difficult.

I do know this, if the anti-gun people were to stop demonstrating... more liberal gun laws would not be passed.  If the NRA was to stop fighting the anti-gun activists (politically of course), I shudder to think what would happen.

AKDejaVu

[StSanta]

Cave:

I was referring to the government, not thieves  . They have regisyration on your car, but haven't banned it yet.They'll prbobably onfiscate it once the great war with you citizens begins  .

Seatbelts and helmets. You Americans donø't wear 'um, voila, the airbag was developed  .

Seriosuly, most people who've worked at a hospital and seen victims of car crashes agree with the law. Here, it also makes economical sense; the government is paying through taxes for medical care of all patients. People not wearing seatbelts are much more prone to serious injury or death, and the former puts a serious strain on the budget. In the US the situation is diffeent, but I personally think it is idiotic NOT to use the seat belt when the stats on car accidents are the way they are.

But, you're an adult, you pay for your own treatment. With children the decision is different I think, and a mandatory law there would be in place.

Helmes help motocyclists to some extent but even wth them, my sister refers to motorcyclists as "future organ donors". Nevertheless, we'll both get bikes when we can afford it  .

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
the government is paying through taxes for medical care of all patients. People not wearing seatbelts are much more prone to serious injury or death, and the former puts a serious strain on the budget...but I personally think it is idiotic NOT to use the seat belt when the stats on car accidents are the way they are.

I'm just too dang busy these days to really pitch into these furballs! I'm missing a lot of the fun!  

What you say IS right. It's just a few cultural differences that make us disagree on the "big picture".    

Your government is paying for every-dam-thing. Of course, you realize that in the end YOU are paying for this stuff with high taxes and what-not. So YOU are paying for every-dam-thing, not the government. Even in Denmark, I suspect the "government" is really the collective "YOU".    

Next you'll be telling me how great the "free education" is but complaining that these high gas taxes have got to be reigned in!    

Sorta like what Al Gore wants to do here, but I digress.    

But there are some of us that DON'T WANT to pay for every-dam-thing....we actually want LESS government.

Further,some of us think that people ought to take the primary responsibility in caring for themselves.

I would never infringe on someone's right to be an idiot. If they want to ride/drive around without a helmet/seatbelt, who am I to tell them how to risk their life?
  They are "big boys now.

I agree with you that not wearing belts and helmets is the mark of an idiot. However, my interpretation is, "hey, if they don't want to wear them...they are idiots. Therefore, no loss to the gene pool if they "X" themselves out in a crash.

If they crash while NOT wearing a helmet/belt and LIVE, then they are TOTALLY responsible for their own medical bills."

That might give rise to a whole new industry, "Idiot Insurance" that would cover their medical in these cases.

Capitalist-Pigdog insurance salemen could buy themselves big boats and houses on the lake with the profits from insuring these non-helmet/non-belt wearing individualists.
Almost sounds "win-win" doesn't it?

 

Guess I'm just not the total liberal yet, am I?

Gotta run, TTFN![/



[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-09-2000).]

[StSanta]

Toad:

I am not disagreeing with you on this.

But. In this country, *I* pay for the idiots who get seriously injured when no waring a seatbelt. I.e the seat belt law makes sense here. Also, it makes sense fo children: what an adult does or doesn't do is up to him or her, but for chrissakes, don't let that stupidity cost the lives of their children.  

Education is still "free" in the sense that I don't have to cash in to get it. Chances of me earning enough to pay for it before I am 25 are small. My parents is another issue.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
 

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 10-09-2000).]

[Dowding]

You make Britain sound like Harlem, Sparks. Deliberately or not.

Firstly, violent crime may be on the increase - but having everyone armed will not solve the problem. Look at America - guns are easily obtained, but they still have a higher amount of violent crime. Or look at South Africa - the problem is even worse.

I wouldn't want the police routinely armed in this country - crims. will be more willing to use arms against them. I have family in the police - I don't want that.

We have always had violent crime - look at the Krays. But the point is you highlight examples that have had a huge amount of media coverage. There are some errors in your info:

1) Kenneth Noye stabs Stephen Cameron in road rage incident. Depending on the witness, Cameron instigated the fracas - if he had a 9mm, perhaps he would have done the killing? How many other people would have been hurt?

Noye kills him with knife, pleading self-defense.

2) Alan Decabral steps forward, and his testimony (along with other witnesses) is used to convict Noye - he has been given LIFE. He is not going to 'get off' this charge, as you say.

3) Decabral REFUSES police protection.

4) Decabral (who has criminal connections) is shot in supermarket carpark.

5) Noye is currently being questioned about this second murder. Police are going on several theories besides the Noye connection.

You won't be meeting Noye for a very long time. As for this latest killing - you use it as an example that guns are widespread throughout the UK, and all crims are armed. This ain't the case. My cousin has been inside, and has experience of the shadier side of life. Most crims wouldn't dare use a gun - our laws are very, very tough when it comes to armed criminals.

It ain't perfect in the UK -  there is gun crime, but giving everyone a gun will not solve the problem.

[CavemanJ]

damn.. go for a good night's sleep and the thread get's hijacked.  Never shoulda mentioned seatbelts....

Least ya'll coulda started a new thread on this debate  

But while we're here...

Santa I'll let you tell the parents of a kid who was cut in half by his seatbelt when his car got T-boned since the law makes so much sense.  Only part that makes sense is having the kids strapped in and using thier car seats.  They aren't old enough to understand.
Keep in mind my POV comes from where I can get ticketed for exercising my freedom of choice.  Yup, less g'ment is what we need.

now back to the real discussion  

 

Firstly, violent crime may be on the increase - but having everyone armed will not solve the problem. Look at America - guns are easily obtained, but they still have a higher amount of violent crime. Or look at South Africa - the problem is even worse.

A few years back, and I'd have to dig to see if I still have the magazine, an editor of one of the gun magazines was interviewing juvenille gang members that had been incarcerated.  One of the questions asked was who the gang members prefered to pick for targets, and the answer was tourists.  When asked why tourists, the gang member says "cause we know they aren't carrying guns".  Nuff said.  

[Igloo]

Although people are shot and killed with illegal firearms in Canada and the UK, the numbers are much, much lower. That alone is a great reason to restrict gun ownership.

It saves lives - plain and simple.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Toad]

Plain and simple, Igloo:

Show me ONE instance in the US where increased registration/purchase restriction/training/background checks or licensing has lowered violent gun crime rates to a degree greater than the overall decline nationwide.

There are cities that have done some/all of these things in an attempt to lower their crime rates while the rest of the country just went along with "business as usual".

Should be easy to find via the internet.

Spare us the opinion this time, please. Show us some hard numbers.

Then to make it truly impressive, find even ONE that lowered the violent crime rate 60% in one year, the way Project Exile did in Richmond.

Exile did not include registration/purchase restriction/training/background checks or licensing BTW.

It simply locked up criminals that used guns in crimes.

Wow, what a concept! So complex, eh?

[Toad]

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." [Pres. Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993]


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno, December 10th, 1993 [Associated Press]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."    — Adolf Hitler, 1935.

 
 


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]

[Sparks]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
You make Britain sound like Harlem, Sparks. Deliberately or not.

No not deliberately - but it is not the peaceful haven of the world others would make it out to be either.

Firstly, violent crime may be on the increase - but having everyone armed will not solve the problem. Look at America - guns are easily obtained, but they still have a higher amount of violent crime. Or look at South Africa - the problem is even worse.

It is my perception (NOTE the use of the word perception) that the violent crime that is on the increase is that of violent robbery and attacks on innocents. It is also my experience that in the states the majority of gun or violent crime is drug related - criminal against criminal. It is also my experience here in Peterborough that I genuinely fear for my safety in MOST areas of the city after dark - not a fear of getting killed but of being violently attacked - a feeling I didn't experience in the US. Yes there were areas of every town that it was not advisable to go in but what I'm talking about here in my town in the UK is a constant threat of getting a good beating off an individual or group for no reason other than entertainment. People are being attacked on a daily basis - yes daily even in broad daylight. There is a pervasive disrespect for others amongst a section of our society that is based entirely on the power held by intimidation and violence that is left unchecked by our justice system. This abandonment of respectful members of the society leaves them weak and gives power to the criminal and violent which in turn threatens the stabilty of the society. It also alienates those respectful law abiding citizens from the law and justice systems - the very mechanisms that were created by the society to protect them and their way of life - and lets not forget that laws are there to protect a way of life, the standards we want to see as a minimum. I think that the right to carry arms and an armed police force redresses the balance and aligns the law abiding population more with the law and justice systems.

I wouldn't want the police routinely armed in this country - crims. will be more willing to use arms against them. I have family in the police - I don't want that.

I simply disagree with you on that - I would welcome the day that when I call the Police for someone in my garden I know that they will come suitably equiped to protect themselves and my family.

We have always had violent crime - look at the Krays. But the point is you highlight examples that have had a huge amount of media coverage. There are some errors in your info:

Yes I got some of it wrong in the detail but I would make two points; first the Krays to my knowledge committed their violent acts mostly against other criminals - that goes with my earlier post as a "risk of the job" ; second the level of violence that the Krays operated at would no longer make the news today.

Now to the detail:-

1) Kenneth Noye stabs Stephen Cameron in road rage incident. Depending on the witness, Cameron instigated the fracas - if he had a 9mm, perhaps he would have done the killing? How many other people would have been hurt?

First if we allowed ownership of guns maybe Cameron would have thought twice about instigating the incident. Second even if Cameron had decided to instigate the incident maybe Noye would have thought twice about drawing a kinfe in a simple roadside arguement.
Notice again though how an inanimate object - the knife - is used to kill someone - we going to destroy or register all knifes now?? - what about pointy sticks??

Noye kills him with knife, pleading self-defense.

For the court to decide

2) Alan Decabral steps forward, and his testimony (along with other witnesses) is used to convict Noye - he has been given LIFE. He is not going to 'get off' this charge, as you say.

Yes I was wrong - I thought he was still on remand, I didn't realise he had been convicted. But just what does "life" here mean then - the rest of his natural? 40 years? - 30 years? no, 15-20 and maybe 2/3 of that with parole - in my book he still gets off

3) Decabral REFUSES police protection.

Didn't realise - dumb move on his part - concede that one.

4) Decabral (who has criminal connections) is shot in supermarket carpark.

It was a hit plain and simple.

5) Noye is currently being questioned about this second murder. Police are going on several theories besides the Noye connection.

You won't be meeting Noye for a very long time.

I'm sorry but why should we consider a man like Noye back into our society EVER again - I personally do not like the idea that I might ever meet him - no length of time in prison is going to change that mans view of his position in our society or his view of others - he respects NO-ONE.. and this is my point. This assertion that a prison term of a fixed length serves our society is rubbish - the education of repsect for others, for accountabilty and responsibilty of your position in a society is what is required and if you have to take a teenage career criminal and keep him out of society in some way for 20 years until he/she learns it then so be it. It's sad but why should innocent people pay the price untill they learn or die??

As for this latest killing - you use it as an example that guns are widespread throughout the UK,...

They clearly are


... and all crims are armed.

I never made that assertion.

This ain't the case. My cousin has been inside, and has experience of the shadier side of life. Most crims wouldn't dare use a gun - our laws are very, very tough when it comes to armed criminals.

Well we will have to plain disagree on that one and, as I said in my original post, I simply don't believe that criminals consider the punishment before they pick up a weapon - they have no respect and so they don't consider getting caught because they believe they are the powerful one. In their eyes the gun is merely a tool for increasing their power in any situation - if guns didn't exist it would be crossbows or something else. The gun is merely available,  convenient and easy to use - the best tool for the job.

It ain't perfect in the UK -  there is gun crime, but giving everyone a gun will not solve the problem.

No "giving everyone a gun" like you are going to mailshot everyone a rifle is not the answer and that is not what we are talking about - the legal right of a citizen to hold a gun in a lawful way is. A gun is a tool - a means of hunting, a sporting device and yes a means of defence. What the US has is a population who are fiercely proud of what they have and who are willing to fight to defend it - they don't all have guns but they all know they have the right to one if they need it. When I lived there I didn't own one but I knew if I felt I needed one I had the right to buy one and the resources to learn to use it properly. Whether you like it or not the feeling that you have the means to look after yourself and family no matter what gives you a feeling of security in your future - thats something lacking in the UK to my mind. The people are becoming powerless and afraid and that is more dangerous in the long term. In some ways I agree that the UK is now not ready for legalised firearms - there are too many people who are too afraid and that is a tinderbox waiting to be lit. The lynchmobs looking for peadophiles in Plymouth shows my point, the individual feels they cannot protect themselves or their family adequately and so look to others to join them and give them the strength they need.

[Igloo]

Toad, your name suits you.

You know as well as I do that finding out how many lives were saved via gun restrictions is virtually impossible.  We do know, however, that lives were saved, and that in itself is a good enough reason.

Are you trying to tell me that restricting gun ownership will not save lives?  Is that what you're saying?  You're saying that more people will die if guns are regulated, than if the insane gun lobbying were to continue?

Talk about selfish logic.

It is a very simple concept.  Restrictions on guns saves lives.  Is your gun so loved by you that this in itself is not a valid enough purpose to lay down your firearms?

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]