Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on February 04, 2004, 08:39:23 AM
-
This BB has posters from around the world.. The fireams laws vary widely.. Soo... who feels that their countries firearms laws are too strict or even....
Not strict enough?
I believe the firearms laws in the U.S are unconstitutional and way too strict.
lazs
-
Gun show sales are not strict enough in the U.S.
In WA state, the laws are perfect, and the registered hand guns that commit crimes compared to non-registered (or "hot" guns) is about 10,000 to 1 when a concealed weapons permit is issued.
The U.S. also has an FBI background check for every purchase of a handgun (Except at Gun shows apparently)
-
gun show laws are exactly the same as the state in which the show is held... How are they not strict enough?
lazs
-
I think gun laws in Spain are just right.
Daniel
-
Yup...anytime there is some sort of high profile shooting or mishap, people automatically fault the gun. This country evades the notion of personal responsibility at all costs. Its never someone's fault, its always blamed on the gun, the car, the plane, etc etc.
As always, the lawful ones will bear the bad rap of those you use them improperly. Stereotyping lives on.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gun show laws are exactly the same as the state in which the show is held... How are they not strict enough?
lazs
I've only heard 2nd hand that no FBI background check is done at gun shows. I cannot verify this though.
-
Too strict, for reasons given in the other thread.
-
Just right.
-
Well.. since I'd like to have some weapons.. hehe.. I think the laws are too strict ;)
Especially when the license can depend on the current mood of a person deciding it, even if otherwise fine... like if theres two persons who are closely alike, the other might have his license and the other have his denied, depending on the mood.
-
Perfect until Dunblane, too strict on handguns after that.
-
I havent given it a tought... leave em as is i guess... no need for guns here...
-
besides the gunshow loophole, it seems to be okay in the states.
-
there is no gunshow loophole... and....
what part of the United States are you talking about? Gun laws vary wildly between the states. Most states have a "must issue" law so I assume that you think that concealed carry is OK? I agree with that part.
lazs
-
Only 18 states have closed the gunshow loopholw laz. A couple years back they found out that here in florida members of the IRA were buying guns at gunshows and mailing them back to ireland. As well as the guns bought for the columbine kids. There still is a gunshow loophole.
-
I believe the firearms laws in the U.S are unconstitutional and way too strict.
Agreed. Its stupid that you can't have a bayonette, flash hider and a folding stock on a rifle if you want to. It dosen't make it any more deadly.
I'm hoping the AWB sunsets, that way I can buy 30 rounders cheap again.
-
Gun Shows and Federal Law. Federal gun laws apply equally everywhere; there are no special exemptions for gun shows. Under the Gun Control Act (1968), anyone who "engages in the business" of selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of where he does business. There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer," and dealing in guns without a license is a federal felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. In the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986), Congress specifically authorized licensed firearms dealers to conduct business at gun shows.
Many Federal laws place obstacles to criminals getting guns. Under Federal law (and many state laws), felons, illegal aliens, fugitives, drug addicts and several other classes of "prohibited persons" are barred from possessing guns or ammunition. It is also illegal to buy a gun for a prohibited person (called a "straw purchase") or provide a gun to a prohibited person by any other means. These are felony offenses punishable by 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.
Gun Shows and the National Instant Check System. Congress has provided tens of millions of dollars to upgrade state criminal history records for entry into the National Instant Check System (NICS), which is used to screen retail gun purchasers. Federal law requires dealers to always screen gun customers through NICS. They must do so at gun shows, just as they would anywhere else.
Congress has specifically addressed gun sales by people who are not dealers. Under Federal law, a person who is not a dealer may sell a gun to another non-dealer for the purpose of "improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection." This is true wherever the sale occurs, and only a tiny percentage of such sales occur at shows. As noted, however, to "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms requires a federal license.
Few criminals get guns at gun shows. The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of imprisoned felons found that less than 1% obtained guns from gun shows. (Firearms Use by Offenders, Nov. 2001). The previous BJS survey found that only 1.7% of federal prison inmates got their guns from gun shows. (Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98, June 2000) An earlier National Institutes of Justice study found that less than 2% obtained guns from shows. (Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, Dec. 1997) According to these reports, most criminals get guns from theft or burglary, the black market, or friends and family members.
Posted: 1/21/2004
By Jim Pate
Gun shows in the United States--as John McCain and the former Clinton Administration staffers at Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) explain it--have suddenly become an irresistible magnet for foreign terrorists.
These terrorists regularly sneak into shows, the McCain/AGS claim goes, to exploit a "loophole" in federal law and buy large numbers of guns. This hogwash is being sold to the American people in a slick ad campaign funded by New York City billionaire Andrew McKelvey.
McKelvey founded AGS and spends millions every year in a personal crusade to restrict Second Amendment rights. Operating with unaccountability, his agenda includes efforts to abolish gun shows, federally regulate all gun sales between private citizens and register all law-abiding gun owners.
Despite all McKelvey`s expensive ads, the gun show "loophole" argument ignores the fact that federal laws already prevent criminals--and that word includes terrorists--from going to gun shows and buying firearms, everywhere in the country.
And, despite the ad blitz, the idea that Osama bin Laden and other terrorist bosses overseas arm themselves with small arms bought in the U.S. makes as much sense as Alaskans having ice flown in from Florida.
Peshawar, Pakistan, located only a few miles from Afghanistan`s busiest border crossing, is one of the world`s most notorious cash-and-carry gun markets. Machine guns are common. One can send a 12-year-old boy with a few $20 bills to the bazaar to buy an AK-47 as easily as an American mom sends her child out for a loaf of bread.
Hand grenades are available, as are surface-to-air missiles and rocket launchers. Leftover U.S.-made Stinger missiles from the CIA-sponsored war against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan have moved through the same black market.
Unlike U.S. gun shows--where licensed dealers must do the same background checks and fill out the same federal forms as they do when selling a gun in a store--Asia`s gun markets are infamous for cash-and-carry transactions. Anyone of any age who has the money can buy, no questions asked.
This begs the obvious question: If Middle East terrorists can get more guns--not to mention more powerful weapons--faster and cheaper at home, why would they risk coming all the way to the United States to stand out like sore thumbs at a gun show?
The answer is they wouldn`t. But those who hate gun shows and what they deride as "America`s gun culture" are hoping logic won`t apply as they seek to exploit public fear over the possibility of additional terrorist acts. McCain likely will attach his gun show bill--S.890--as an amendment to other legislation in January, possibly the homeland security bill. In the anxious climate of a wartime home front, its chance of passage is much improved.
"It is critical that NRA members and anyone else who doesn`t want to see gun shows become a thing of the past get to their friends and start working the phones," said Jim Baker, ILA Executive Director. "We don`t have much time. Everyone should let their U.S. Senators know they oppose this cynical attack on our rights."
In a win-at-any-cost zeal to renew attacks on the right to keep and bear arms, the gun-control camp acted quickly in the aftermath of September 11 to exploit the nation`s intense emotional turmoil. Osama bin Laden swiftly replaced the Columbine killers as the talisman by which to substitute emotion for fact in public policy debate.
AGS "fact" sheets deliberately distorted cases of alleged foreign terrorists buying at U.S. gun shows. These "misinformation" sheets have been regurgitated almost verbatim by gullible news reporters.
USA Today trumpeted three cases taken from the AGS releases, including that of Ali Boumelhem, a Michigan resident linked to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Convicted one day before the September 11 attacks of conspiring to smuggle guns and ammunition to Lebanon, he has become the AGS poster boy in McKelvey`s zeal to spread the lie that gun shows are a steady source of guns for foreign terrorists.
AGS mischaracterized FBI testimony. The bureau, which had Boumelhem, a convicted felon, under surveillance for months prior to his arrest, saw him shopping at three different gun shows in Michigan. He also was seen unloading "weapons and explosives" in Beirut. The implication, of course, was that these were the same items purchased at gun shows in Michigan.
AGS`s source was The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, which was much more specific about the Beirut sighting than the AGS release. The bulletin reported that Boumelhem was seen "unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers," which are not sold at gun shows anywhere in this country.
AGS also trotted out the case of Muhammed Asrar, a Texas shop owner from Pakistan who, USA Today reported, "was arrested in an investigation of the September 11 attacks." Omitted was the fact that the probe failed to link Asrar with the terrorist attacks, and there was no indication that he ever shipped guns overseas or bought them for any reason other than personal protection.
"He pleaded guilty to immigration violations and illegal possession of ammunition," the newspaper reported. "The Pakistani store owner said he had bought handguns, rifles and a submachine gun at gun shows since 1994." The report failed to note, however, that submachine guns can`t be bought at gun shows, so if Asar`s claim is true he should have been prosecuted on a more serious charge, violating the National Firearms Act.
Another "terrorist" case AGS cites is that of Conor Claxton, an Irishman from West Belfast, convicted for using a straw buyer at a Florida show to purchase guns that were mailed back to Ireland. Contrary to claims made by AGS and McCain, Claxton, who was sentenced to four years in prison, was nonetheless acquitted of the specific charge of smuggling to the Irish Republican Army.
McCain, McKelvey and their cohorts conveniently fail to mention the most important aspect of each of their examples. In every case, the system worked--the violators were arrested, tried and convicted. Convicted felons face a possible 10-year prison sentence just for walking into a gun show. Federal law already prohibits non-resident and illegal aliens from buying guns.
They may respond that it is the private sales between individuals at gun shows that pose a potential threat from terrorists. But if the goal of would-be terrorists is to procure firearms in quantity, it would be difficult to do so through private transactions unless the seller was willing to commit a federal felony by "engaging in the business" without a license.
In the end, the deceit behind this campaign to further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens serves more than a corrupt political agenda. By extension, it lends support to those who hate America`s freedom and seek to destroy our way of life.
Posted: 2/15/2003
-
UK .................Not strict enough IMO
penalty for illegal possesion of a firearm is far too low.
-
WTG Dune, You saved me the time of cutting and pasting those articles as well.
:aok
For the record US Gun Laws are bordering on being blatantly unconstitutional. Punish the law breakers and not the law abiders. This country is not founded on punishing all to stop a few.
-
um you still have the right to own firearms do you not? how are the gun laws as they are now on the border of not being unconstitutional?
Sorry for questioning your ability to be a supreme court judge.
-
They are reasonable and sufficiently effective in practice.
-
There needs to be a concealed carry constitutional amendment.
-
um you still have the right to own firearms do you not?
Yes but, there are laws that limit the type of firearms we can own and what type of modifications we can do to them. Now, that may not seem like a big deal. But, there are people trying to limit that even further. If they get thier way, its not unreasonable to believe that one day ALL fire arms could be illegal.
Its a simple matter of giving an inch and they take a foot. Eventually there won't be any thing left. And that dosen't have to stop with firearms. That can happen to ANY of our rights, if we let it.
That said, alot of the current gun laws don't make much sense. take the 94 AWB for example. Does a bayonette, flash hider, pistol grip or folding stock make a weapon more deadly? No, so why are we limited as to the use of those on a fire arm? Because the people making the laws, and those that support them don't know anything about firearms.
People who don't know jack about guns are screwing the rest of us over with thier ignorance.
-
The gun show loophole goes something like this:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone in the business of selling guns to obtain a federal firearms license (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" under the GCA, and thus is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act.
Most all of the vendors at gun shows nowadays, given the liability concerns, are licensed gun dealers, i.e. not within the category of persons targeted by the "Gunshow loophole". As licensed dealers, they are bound by the background check requirements imposed under the GCA.
Clearly there is a problem, but Im not sure how to address it. Should there be legal requirements controlling how an unlicensed individual disposes of his handguns? If I want to sell my 9mm pistol to my neighbor, should I be burdened with obtaining background check forms, figuring out how to submit them, where to submit them, etc? Maybe ... maybe not. I can tell you for sure I dont think the government has a right to know where each and every handgun in the country is - thats a little too much info for big brother. If we had some type of legislation that required purging of background check results that were approved, I might buy on to that - but any records that are kept and/or archived - no thanks.
Nim
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
um you still have the right to own firearms do you not? how are the gun laws as they are now on the border of not being unconstitutional?
Sorry for questioning your ability to be a supreme court judge.
Bored today froggy?
I will tell you how it is unconstitutional... The 2nd Ammendment clearly states that the citizen's of this country have the right to bare arms. It does NOT state that we can not bear arms that fall under AW classifications, or how big, how small, how many rounds it can carry. That is an added concept by liberals to further limit the rights of a law abiding citizen. Furthermore, the constitution does not provide for the requirement of the registration of a firearm, which is mandatory in all 50 states (you register the weapon when you purchase it from a dealer) this can be gotten around by purchasing from individuals, but, it is still wrong. I did not write it, but I have read it, and it bothers me that these little quirks are added to a system that is finewithout a liberal pansy judge or politician changing it to garner favor or votes.
-
There are some laws that I agree with, and some that I don't.
I have no problem with requiring all firearms to be registered. I have no problem with requiring trigger locks. I have no problem with requiring transported firearms to be unloaded and in a locking case. And I have no problem with requiring a training course for a conceal carry permit. Those are all pretty much common sense anyway.
I do have a problem with having to jump through hoops to get a conceal carry permit. To sum it all up, why not? Why take away a person's ability to defend him/herself? No matter how great the local PD is, they will NOT prevent any crime from occurring. They will only show up after the fact to call you an ambulance and take your statement. This is not meant to be a negative statement about law enforcement. After all, until we invent pre-crime, they can't magically know what's happening and where.
I also have an issue with restrictions on what kind of gun can be owned. Let people get what they want. If I wanna keep an AK-47 in my house, why shouldn't I be able to? I also wanted to get the .50 cal rifle ... now I can't.
-
I am ok with carrying openly when not in cities but concealed carry is far more polite and..... effective. concealed carry works because the bad guys don't know who is armed.
I say less restrictions on guns but higher penalties for crimes commited with guns.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I say less restrictions on guns but higher penalties for crimes commited with guns.
lazs
How about NO RESTRICTIONS on firearms, and severe penalties for crimes committed with them.
-
fine with me bodhi... I believe that a bank robber should have his gun handed back to him (along with HIS voting rights) when he is released from prison.... If he isn't ready to have a firearm then he isn't ready to be released.
one exception... mentaly defective persons and foreigners shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.
lazs
-
um you still have the right to own firearms do you not? how are the gun laws as they are now on the border of not being unconstitutional?
the second amendment doesn't say "the right to bear arms shall not be abolished", it says the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed . that is how the laws are unconstitutional.
basicly it says that I should have free access to arms and the right to cary them without gov't interferance or regulation. unless of course, like any other right I've done something ilegal to cause my right to be forefit.
registering your guns is not required in most states (no matter how much the news media wants to make it apear that it is).
the first step to taking the guns from the general population is to create a list of where they all are, so registering guns is a bad idea.
it's a good reason to buy used guns. although I can easily pass a background check (and have passed a few for various jobs. not the kind where they look up paperwork but the kind where the FBI talks to your niegbors), I won't buy a new gun because I don't believe the gov't has a right to a list of my weapons and private sales are a legal way I can protect my rights.
-
Seems to me that whenever this issue is debated in a US context it comes down to the citizens rights enshrined in the constitution of the United States of America and a perception of what freedom means to folk.
Its clear that many in the US hold the gun dear and many more hold their right to own one dearer still.
All the rest is BS really.
Its a right, a privilage that US folk (in general) enjoy and wish to maintain. In a democracy that is the right of it.
I will however go back to a statement I made in such a debate many years ago which still holds true.
This right or privilage, or call it what you will, has a cost and that cost is measured in human lives. We may all debate the number of lives or the value of lives or the acceptability of the cost but its unit of measure is always the same.
-
Gun registration.......cash grab.
Having to federally register a firearm ensures only one thing.
Most gun owners will be criminals. (the idea being that having to shell out a considerable $$ amount to register the weapon, will not sit well with most and they will not register).
Forced federal registration is just yet another blatant cash grab.
It does nothing to-reduce the number of fire arm related crime. On the contrary, it turns normal law abiding, responsible gun owners into criminals for failing to register.
RTR
-
Originally posted by Tilt
This right or privilage, or call it what you will, has a cost and that cost is measured in human lives. We may all debate the number of lives or the value of lives or the acceptability of the cost but its unit of measure is always the same.
yep, just like the LACK of being armed can be measured in human lives, just click the link below:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html
Stats from the U.S. Dept of Justice
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
....registering your guns is not required in most states (no matter how much the news media wants to make it apear that it is).
the first step to taking the guns from the general population is to create a list of where they all are, so registering guns is a bad idea....
Regardless of state law, gun registration is required by federal law at point of sale, and while not required as yet in personal transactions, it is going to be by 2006, and will probably be done in 2005.
While disagreeing over the registration issue, I do agree with the statement regarding the purpose of gun registration, and will stand by the age old statement concerning the attempt to take said weapons...
"They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand."
'nuff said?
-
I guess I have about a year to fill out my collection.
-
I think the UK gun laws are OK as far as I'm concerned. I could buy a shotgun, and keep it in a big green safe like the one Lazs has in his back room, but I haven't even done that. I have no need for a gun.
Having said that, it's fair to say that gun law enforcement needs beefing up. Still too many guns around. On Dec. 26th, a policeman was shot dead by a man who turned out to be an American on the run from Florida. There was a newspaper article about that, and it made the point that the police would have much more to deal with if the supply of guns to the public was unrestricted, and made mention of the fact that gang leaders are often thwarted by the fact that they can't get hold of guns to use as tools of their evil trade.
I was going to post a link about this, but realised that the thread might draw in Mr. Toad, whose squad was about to suffer a bereavement. Not a good time for a Toad-Beet1e chain yanking thread, so I didn't post.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the second amendment doesn't say "the right to bear arms shall not be abolished", it says the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed . that is how the laws are unconstitutional.
No, it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I'm not certain that the meaning is necessarily the same without the first part.
Here's an interesting read: http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm
It addresses many of the points for and some against a strong 2nd Amendment but doesn't seem to be arguing either particular side of the discussion.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No, it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning isn't necessarily the same without the first part.
A lot of people also forget that at the time of the Constitution, the militia consisted of every able-bodied male age 16 to 60, possessing whatever firearms he saw appropriate to acquire.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
A lot of people also forget that at the time of the Constitution, the militia consisted of every able-bodied male age 16 to 60, possessing whatever firearms he saw appropriate to acquire.
Ah... the historical argument... check out the link in my last "edited" post. ;)
-
Im fairly happy with our gun _laws_ but i think there are to many guns in private hands. Alot of folks never use the guns they own licenses for and they should hand them in or sell them so they don't fall into the hands of burglars and criminal elements.
I read somewhere in the news that norway has more guns per person than in the US.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
yep, just like the LACK of being armed can be measured in human lives, just click the link below:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html
Stats from the U.S. Dept of Justice
Typical selective BS arguement.
You can go here
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html
These are the actual published UK government figures. Not some selection taking a nice curve finishing in 97 ignoring that both governments complie stats totally differently and define types of crimes differently.
and when you are there you can trawl thru it all and pick up figures selectively to support both sides of a US based anti/pro gun law arguement that at the end of the day prove nothing.
What you will not find is any figure suggesting that the UK will be a safer place should guns be made available to the masses on a US model.
UK and US are so radically different in view of gun related history, culture and mind set that comparing the two is just total folly.
The US has a gun culture, the UK does not. Hence banning guns here was a comparatively small step easily done. Nationally it was in the news for a couple of weeks then comparably forgotten.
It would take many generations for the US to approach the UK non gun culture and only then after a core change in the US psyche such that it wanted to. (which IMO will not happen) And after that several generations before any gun control even became effective.
Switch on any local radio in the US and you will hear a news report of a gun related crime........ it is not reported as an extremely unusual event........its reported as just news.
The point I am making is that in the US fire arms are part of a way of life that many hold dear and wish to preserve. Further to hold onto that way of life, the cost (measured in lives lost) is considered acceptable.
-
Tilt - Spot on. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Ah... the historical argument... check out the link in my last "edited" post. ;)
Good find. Saved. Lots of good arguments and evidence in there.
Classifying my argument (it fits into the Doctrinal category as well - McReynolds decision) doesn't detract from its validity, though. :)
-
tilt... so what has disarming your populace done for you? Has it decreased crime? Has it made for less homicides in your country? Does it make you feel safer if on the news you never hear about shootings but instead the murders are commited with knives or axes or bats or... whatever?
I hear about shootings all the time hear if I listen to the news. They are usually far far away from me but even if they aren't... they pose no real threat.... On the other hand....
when I was in england..... there were signs everywhere to watch pout for pickpockets and thieves... even my evening out at the movies was subjected to warnings at the box office and a "commercial" that warned me to be on my toes at all times...
Now... you tell me... which is more obtrusive... Getting shot is like getting hit by lightning for the vast majority of us here in the U.S. but your crime is very intrusive in your daily lives.
sooo.... you gain nothing by getting rid of firearms but.... you "feel" safer? Do the "watch out for pickpockets" signs make you feel safer?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sooo.... you gain nothing by getting rid of firearms but.... you "feel" safer? Do the "watch out for pickpockets" signs make you feel safer?
lazs
If I take precautions, I'm pretty sure no pickpocket is going to pull out a gun at me. Not even a knife for that matter.
If I lived in the States, I would surely buy a gun... knowing myself, probably more than one.
In Spain? No thanks. I prefer having gun laws right as they are now.
It's not a question of money, it's a question of "really" being into guns. If you really enjoy going plinkin', I assure you there are ways to do so in Spain, but it's a slow and thorough process.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The UK populace was never "armed" as you put it lazs from which we have never been disarmed. We never had mass ownership of side arms.
No1 weapon of homicide is a knife/sharp object by a factor of 100 times.........followed by poisen (well for 2002 any way due to one mass murderer now recorded with over 200 deaths to his name) followed by blunt instruments.............I think cars are counted for several times the number of homicdes than firearms.
"crime" did decrease over 97 to 2001 when it went up and then down again but various subgroups are all over the place you can use the figures to prove any thing except that we (GB)would be safer with more guns
Also in those UK figures firearms in clude air powered arms which account for upto 60% of that sector!
They overwhelming weapon in "violent robberies" in the UK is the fist or the boot.
There are no signs every where saying beware of pickpockets (London museums football matches maybe ........any one?) and the very thought that guns could or would even be thought to be used as a solution to pickpockets is just such an absolute non starter here...........we would think you utterly insane!
Very few sane Brits would actually feel safer in the UK because they were carrying a weapon. The notion itsself is just incredible...............
Actually I do feel safer in the UK than I do when I'm in the US........ Its not any great distinction and I think it is some thing to do with being a "stranger in a strange land".
I'll be at a convention in Chicago in early March. Am I going for a walk down town? Should I worry about getting lost in some of its suburbs? You tell me.............
But its not really the point is it? I believe that if we have gun law in the UK (which I support) then the penalties for breaking it should be draconian.......very harsh and apply to every one.
But as I say the US and the UK are light years away from each other in this respect............your pickpocket analogy shows this.........if we just had a conversation on how the two nations define "self defence" you may see the gulf between our out looks.
Fire arms are not an emotive issue to the average Brit. The great bulk of the population have never touched one........never mind wanted one.
To turn a Texan saying on its head................."its a Brit thing you probably wouldn't understand"
-
I think the right to bear arms stuff is insane. Every study shows that the ready availabilty of firearms leads to more homicides.
As for the argument that guns don't kill people, people do.. well nutters without guns cane be dangerous, nutters with ready access to automatic weapons are lethal.
As far as I'm concerned the ownership of firearms outside military, poss police (not in uk as a matter of course) and hunters/pest control people is insanity of the highest order and asking for big trouble.
Yes I am a liberal:D
So no, the firesarms laws in UK are not too strict. They are probably about right, as the police can refuse a firearms licence WITHOUT having to justify it. It is a privelige, not a right.
By the way, I am a farmer who owns a double barrel 12 bore shotgun and a .22 rifle. I shoot game and rabbits etc. None of that affects what I say above.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Fire arms are not an emotive issue to the average Brit. The great bulk of the population have never touched one........never mind wanted one.
To turn a Texan saying on its head................."its a Brit thing you probably wouldn't understand"
Interesting little story about Brit vs. American gun culture that I've probably told before here, but I'll tell it again anyway.
I was at the Thames Valley (UK) Police HQ a year and a half ago, on an all-access tour as part of my studies. We spent two days there, examining a lot of the everyday operations of UK police. Part of our tour on the first day was of the Firearm Response Vehicles (normal UK police don't carry guns).
My group (8 Americans) went down to the garage, and had a half hour introduction by two firearms officers. They ran through some common situations that they are called out for, how they respond, showed us their vehicle, equipment, and tactics.
Interestingly, handguns are strictly backup weapons for them. If they go, they go all-out with MP5's, body armor, the whole bit.
One of the officers, after checking the gun's chamber, held an MP5 out to me. Naturally, I took it and shouldered the weapon, making sure to observe all the rules for safe firearm handling that I'd been taught.
I looked up and noticed the two officers exchange glances, then both burst out laughing. I'm thinking, "Crap, what did I do?" I didn't point the gun in an unsafe direction at any time, finger was outside the trigger guard, etc.
Before I could ask what was so funny, one of the officers looked at me and said something like "Only an American. No Brit would have touched that, let alone have the first idea what to do with it."
It was, to say the least, an enlightening experience.
-
Originally posted by FOGOLD
I think the right to bear arms stuff is insane. Every study shows that the ready availabilty of firearms leads to more homicides.
And I'm assuming that the criminals are going to obey those laws and not purchase illegal weapons, right?
Is there a study that shows an increase in homicides commited with a legally purchased weapon by the owner? Let's exclude accidents and self defense. I'm talking about pure intended murder where a person used a weapon that he/she legally owned and that person would not have commited that crime (i.e. seek illegal firearm or used another weapon) if the firearm had not been legally available.
-
all studies show that crime and homicides go down when more people are allowed to have guns.... the more guns available the less crime... the worst that can happen is that crime and homicides remain unchanged.
In england, up untill 1902 the people were allowed to carry firearms. A good book to read is "guns and violence the english experiance" by Joyce Lee Malcolm
Australia was allways a heavily armed country and with moderate crime... certainly homicides were no worse than most... one incident was all the women and panic mongers needed to disarm an entire country... no proof it would do any good... just good common womanly sense and liberal fear....
most estimates put the increase in australian crime at between 20-40% since the disarming of it's populace.
lazs
-
Lazs,
folks were allowed to carry guns in any society at some point. There were no rules governing firearms before firearms themselves were invented, just as there was no law against driving down a city street at 100mph in the year 1750. :rolleyes:
What happened is that as problems started to rear their ugly heads, laws were introduced to contain the situation.
England was "disarmed" in 1902 you say? I wouldn't know. I remember having to sit at my grandmother's tea table every Friday afternoon in the 1950s while she and my great aunts (and sometimes the great uncles) nattered about this and that for a couple of hours. Can't ever remember a conversation lamenting the "disarmament" of Britain though. So can you tell me what proportion of the public was armed up until 1902? My guess is 0.1% or less. So why the "disarmament"? Probably because we didn't want to end up like America with its "Wild West" of the 1880s. Most people who live in unarmed societies are quite happy with the status quo. My thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107970&pagenumber=2) includes a list of no fewer than fifteen countries from which people voted on this BBS not to have an unrestricted supply of weapons into their countries.
Dunno about Australia - but I remember your debate with SC-Spook. :lol Australia probably had more than a moderate amount of crime, considering the punishment for some hardened criminals in Britain was "Transportation". The convicts would be transported to Australia, under penalty of death should they try to return to Britain. Not many did. It was a long way home, and most seemed to like the weather out there, and adapted to a life of sheep farming. The Australian expression "pommy" (US equivalent = "limey") was, I believe, derived from P.O.M.E. - Prisoners Of Mother England.
The fictional character Magwitch in the Charles Dickens novel, "Great Expectations" succeeded in returning to Britain having been transported to Australia, and was sentenced to be hanged, but died before sentence could be carried out...most estimates put the increase in australian crime at between 20-40% since the disarming of it's populace.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bsflag.gif)
-
other than the silly gun registry...they seem fine
if someone wants to kill someone else there gonna do it...with or without a gun...guns merely make the homicide easier...
laz...when was the last time you used a gun for something other than plinking or hunting???
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Before I could ask what was so funny, one of the officers looked at me and said something like "Only an American. No Brit would have touched that, let alone have the first idea what to do with it."
It was, to say the least, an enlightening experience.
lol...if you told it before I don't remember the story...but it is a great one. :)
So true too.
Our little regiment required everyone to be able to shoot their issued weapons so when I was a section comander it was up to me to teach 12 guys everything about their rifles. Most of my guys were tough talking street "dudes", but as soon as I put a loaded weapon in the hands of probably the "toughest" of the bunch his hands shook like a grandma. :) He was really freaked out by it.
I really hope this place stays the same in this regard.
-
Funny that I spent a month and a half there studying, and those are the things that stick in my head. All the classroom stuff about the legal system and history is way in the back of my memory, but the pub discussions of guns, governments, and socialism (there was a socialist convention at the University of London at the same time we were there) are fresh in my mind.
Plus, there were bars in the police stations. How bloody civilized! :)
-
Too strict!!
I have two revolvers that I have not registered yet. If I ever use them for home protection, I could get arrested. Total BS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
all studies show that crime and homicides go down when more people are allowed to have guns....
Come on Lazs, you can't be that obtuse! Just compare the US and UK. Fewer than 100 gun related homicides here in any year. And in the US, there's never been a year when there were fewer than 5,000. And it's on the increase. Let's hope it doesn't get back to 1992 levels, when more than 13,000 people in the US were victims of gun related homicide. And that figure does not take into account the deaths arising from accidental discharges. More guns = more deaths. FFS! What more proof do you want?
Tarmac! Just remind me... was it Reading nick that you visited? Did the Police ever complain that they were overstretched? That's the problem here. Too few police and too lenient sentencing for serious crimes. That's why British crime levels are as high as they are. Anyway, call me thick, but I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make about the gun being thrust into your hands here.
:confused:
Time to bring back the gun sig...
_____________________________ ____
- America’s constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism dating back to the 18th century. In modern times, it is an unmitigated disaster which has given rise to many millions of privately owned guns and an alarming homicide rate, with a tally of more than 300,000 firearms related homicides in the past 25 years. While no law can be 100% effective, Britain has no “gun culture”, and much stricter firearms controls which have contained the annual tally of gun related homicides to a double digit value - fewer than one fiftieth of the American gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 population.
[/color][/size]
-
beetle.... you can't be that obtuse... I am saying that when guns are outlawed in uk countries the crime goes up or stays the same... it doesn't go down... your simple minded knee jerk solutions make things worse not better... the same happens over here... you can't compare the uk with the U.S. tho because they are not even in the same part of the world... they don't have the same ethnic makeup and the U.S. is not as socialist. You don't share similar borders..
How do you explain australia tho? That would be a lot closer to the say... U.S. midwest. When U.S. states adopt right to carry laws their crime goes down... when australia cracks down on legal firearms and the right of their citizens to defend themselves the crime goes up.
lazs
-
Lazs,
Forget trends, forget your own propaganda, and focus on the facts. Refer to my previous post. At least 50 times more gun homicides in the US than in the UK in any year you care to name.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs,
Forget trends, forget your own propaganda, and focus on the facts. Refer to my previous post. At least 50 times more gun homicides in the US than in the UK in any year you care to name.
why not just focus on all homicides and then tell us if the rate is higher or lower after gun bans?
-
What is the leading weapon used in homicides in the UK right now? If that weapon was banned, do you think that would change the homicide rate?
-
What is the leading weapon used in homicides in the UK right now?
Kitchen knife.
If that weapon was banned, do you think that would change the homicide rate?
Yes because we'd all starve.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Kitchen knife.
Yes because we'd all starve.
you wouldn't starve, your government could issue pre-cut food or maybe food cutting centers run by the government.
But if they cared about actual homicide rates, they would ban alcohol and cars .
Intead they banned guns, when we all know ( as Beetle says) there has never been a year with more than 100 gun deaths in the UK . So with guns never being a problem in the UK, what was the logic used to ban them?
-
you wouldn't starve, your government could issue pre-cut food or maybe food cutting centers run by the government.
Which would put the cost of the food up to such an extent there'd be malnutrition and much increased deaths from diseases.
But if they cared about actual homicide rates, they would ban alcohol and cars .
Cars ditto above. 3,500 (approx) deaths on the road each year, tens of thousands saved by cheaper food and medicines that a mobile society can produce.
An alcohol ban would have some validity, but the majority of alcohol deaths are self inflicted. Counting cars and homicides, deaths of 3rd parties caused by alcohol are probably under 500 per year, which needs to be measured against the amount of alcohol consumption and the benefits people derive from it. Alcohol consumption is on a different order of magnitue to firearms use, and deaths (other than self inflicted) are much lower.
Intead they banned guns, when we all know ( as Beetle says) there has never been a year with more than 100 gun deaths in the UK . So with guns never being a problem in the UK, what was the logic used to ban them?
There was no logic. There was a mass shooting at a school, and the media led a campaign to ban them. As in America, the politicians cannot stand up to the media.
Britain had perfectly good gun control laws before handguns were all-but banned in the late 90s.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
There was no logic. There was a mass shooting at a school, and the media led a campaign to ban them. As in America, the politicians cannot stand up to the media.
Britain had perfectly good gun control laws before handguns were all-but banned in the late 90s.
Well we have had our share of school shootings with the media going nutz. Luckily our government isn't controlled by the media...and we still have guns.
-
You have more than your shar eof school shootings and your media effects public opinion and official policy just as much as ours: it's just that gun ownership has a much mor powerful lobby behind it in the US than the UK.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Come on Lazs, you can't be that obtuse! Just compare the US and UK. Fewer than 100 gun related homicides here in any year. And in the US, there's never been a year when there were fewer than 5,000. And it's on the increase. Let's hope it doesn't get back to 1992 levels, when more than 13,000 people in the US were victims of gun related homicide.
How many of those were committed with legally purchased guns by the gun owner?
And that figure does not take into account the deaths arising from accidental discharges.
Accidents happen using damn near everything. With that logic we should outlaw or very heavily control knives, cars, planes, construction equipment, bathtubs, stairs, any buildings with more than one floor, all electrical devices, along with electricity, all chemicals, etc. May be we should become the society of sissies on Demolition Man. "Salt is bad for you, and therefore illegal."
-
Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
How many of those were committed with legally purchased guns by the gun owner?
Who knows... but you strengthen my point of view if you're saying that many/most are committed by someone other than the legally registered owner. If not kept in a secure safe like the one Lazs has, guns can be stolen and get into bad hands. Or criminals who want a gun might be willing to pay a premium to get hold of one, and make someone an offer he cannot refuse... Wasn't one of those Columbine kids involved in selling on weapons to the criminal underworld to make a few $? Accidents happen using damn near everything. With that logic we should outlaw or very heavily control knives, cars, planes, construction equipment, bathtubs, stairs, any buildings with more than one floor, all electrical devices, along with electricity, all chemicals, etc. May be we should become the society of sissies on Demolition Man. "Salt is bad for you, and therefore illegal."
Knives, cars, planes, bathtubs etc. all have legitimate purposes. It would be very difficult for me to live without them, or make do without electricity in this day and age. But a gun has only one purpose. It is designed to launch a lethal projectile. Yeah I know, waah-waah-waah-waah-shooting-range-waah-waah-waah-waah-second-amendment-waahwaah.... All I'm saying is that I can do without a gun; I would find if very difficult to get by without electricity etc.
But I agree with you on one thing. Salt is bad for you - blood pressure. I rarely add any to my food, and then only a very little. Ban it! ;)
___________________________
- America’s constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism dating back to the 18th century. In modern times, it is an unmitigated disaster which has given rise to many millions of privately owned guns and an alarming homicide rate, with a tally of more than 300,000 firearms related homicides in the past 25 years. While no law can be 100% effective, Britain has no “gun culture”, and much stricter firearms controls which have contained the annual tally of gun related homicides to a double digit value - fewer than one fiftieth of the American gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 population.[/color]
[/size]
-
That’s pretty myopic Beetard. And a foolish if not misleading statement. Guns don’t have just one purpose.
They launch projectiles, sure. But if you rob my house I’ll just kick your bellybutton and take your wallet, and use your credit card on Ebay. If Raub trys to rob my house, I would just shoot him and then use his credit card on Ebay.
Flossy would just rob your house, and kick your ass. See?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
That’s pretty myopic Beetard. And a foolish if not misleading statement. Guns don’t have just one purpose.
They launch projectiles, sure. But if you rob my house I’ll just kick your bellybutton and take your wallet, and use your credit card on Ebay. If Raub trys to rob my house, I would just shoot him and then use his credit card on Ebay.
Flossy would just rob your house, and kick your ass. See?
No need. You've made us aware of what you eat and drink. If you wanted to disable an intruder to your home, all you'd have to do is fart in their general direction. :lol
-
Don't ruin the thread Beetle.
-
beetle... if your point is that the U.S. is more violent or homicidal than the uk. then that is understandable... just as Japan is more suicidal... if your point is that guns are what makes The U.S. more homicidal then you are childish... well... not so much childish as you are womanly hysterical.
The point is... that adding guns reduces the homicides in the U.S. and taking away guns in the uk increases crime and homicides... or at best... leaves it statisticly the same.
so.... you have given up your freedoms for nothing... for womanly fear.
if you gave everyone in your country the right to bear arms your homicide rate would stay the same or drop and it would still be less than that of the U.S.
The factors that make for the differences between our countries rates are not firearms.
lazs
-
Don't worry, Creamo. I could tell this thread was almost done when I read
Originally posted by lazs2
so.... you have given up your freedoms for nothing... for womanly fear.
Well Lazs, allow me to take a step back a moment...
See when I came to the US in 1979 to live and work, I knew that there were a lot of privately owned guns. I thought just about everyone might carry one, and wondered if I would need to buy my own. When I got there, I half expected the guys in my department to be wearing holstered guns under their jackets/suitcoats. I quickly realised that was not the case. No-one I ever worked with came to work with a gun, and there was no discussion of guns at work. Shortly afterwards in 1980, a gun related atrocity had occurred in Chicago not far from where I was working. It might have been the Cabrini Green housing project - too long ago to remember the details. But I remember an article appearing in the Chicago Tribune, quoting the gun related homicide stats for the major countries in Europe. The values were all single or double digit values. And then there was the American stat - 10,000+. And I thought "so much for guns making the place safer" Then Mike Royko in the Tribune began a series of articles which ran and ran - one a day - in which he argued the case against guns.
I came back to England in 1982, and walked into a new crisis - the US placement of Cruise missiles at USAF Greenham Common. The protesters there were all women, or wimmin as they preferred to be known. They must have been playing up to your sterotype - lol. Those wimmin and the Labour Party wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons unilaterally - that is, get rid of them regardless of whether Russia got rid of theirs. I was against that and, fortunately for all mankind, so were Thatcher and Reagan. Later of course we had multilateral disarmament brought about by the "peace dividend", and several American air force bases, including USAF Greenham Common, have since closed because they were no longer needed. The "peace wimmin" remained; well, they were all dykes, and probably liked each other's company... ;)
So just now, when I looked for some material from Royko, I found this. "Finally, I noticed something else. Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws. The drugs flow and so does the supply of weapons. It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem. Just as junkies find drugs, criminals find weapons. And I haven't the faintest idea how to prevent it. And we've now reached the point where most law-abiding gun owners believe that they need their guns because of all the artillery that is in the hands of the loonies. They are against unilateral disarmament."
The key is in the last two sentences. The loonies are armed to the teeth, and you guys don't want unilateral disarmament....
... and I don't blame you. That's why I have NEVER said on this BBS that law abiding people in America should be made to give up their guns. But what I have done (on many occasions!) is to point out the cost in terms of human lives of a policy which allows an unlimited supply of handguns and other deadly weapons to get into the hands of the bad guys.
My Californian friend, CPP, lives in a remote area near Oxnard and has a pistol. He hates the thing. He hates even more the fact that circumstances conspired to persuade him to get one. There's only one reason you guys need a gun - to defend yourself from a bad guy who also has a gun. What we have done in Europe/NZ/Japan etc. is to strive for the scenario whereby even the bad guys don't have guns. That way, the good guys won't need them either. It's a strategy that has worked, even if it hasn't worked perfectly.
So your attempts to glorify gun ownership to the rest of the world are going to fall on deaf ears, I'm afraid. You probably have a lot of guys here who support your stance, just as I have a lot of guys who support mine.
The problem for the US is, and always will be, that there are so many guns in circulation now that attempts to rectify this will leave guns in criminal hands only.
Far from viewing American gun ownership rights as something we envy, most of us outside the US can see that private gun ownership is something you are saddled with, and for which you will go on paying a cost of thousands of lives every year.
_____________________________ _________
- America’s constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism dating back to the 18th century. In modern times, it is an unmitigated disaster which has given rise to many millions of privately owned guns and an alarming homicide rate, with a tally of more than 300,000 firearms related homicides in the past 25 years. While no law can be 100% effective, Britain has no “gun culture”, and much stricter firearms controls which have contained the annual tally of gun related homicides to a double digit value - fewer than one fiftieth of the American gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 population.[/color]
[/size]
-
And you operate under the illusion that the only reason I want to own firearms is because I need to. Because I live in constant fear. Which is not true. And we've told you that.
However, you continue to base your theory on a falsity. Which doesn't help your theory at all.
-
Dune..not trying to be argumentative...but why do you own guns?
You appear in every gun thread advocating ownership and you are a huge fan of the monthly NRA propaganda.
I'm not saying that you are in constant fear of your life, but defensive reasons are part of why you own guns right?
Or are they just cute and fund?;)
-
They are incredibly cute and fund ;)
Why do I own guns?
To hunt with. Becuase I enjoy target shooting. I enjoy working up different loads and seeing which are the most accurate in that particular gun. I enjoy collecting them. I have several WW2 vintage guns, and just like someone who would collect a WW2 fighter or uniform or medal, I enjoy collecting memorabella. It's a hobby. I enjoy showing them to friends, to handling them, to studying them. And, although I haven't in awhile, I also use them to compete in shooting competitions.
And yes, I do own firearms that serve a potentially defensive purpose. I suppose athat, if need be, I could use any of my guns in a defensive way. But, the majority of guns I own wouldn't be considered appropriate for that use (Hunting rifles, bird guns, a Garand or FN-Fal) Do I own guns that are well suited for defensive purposes? Yep. But do the reasons for owning them I gave above also apply? Yes to that question also. I enjoy shooting my S&W Airweight Bodyguard or my Colt 1911 Officer's Model (both guns well-suited to conceal carry) just as much as I enjoy shooting my .416 Rem Mag or my M1 Carbine (neither of which would make a particularly good defensive weapon)
Simply put, even if I lived in a world were there was absolutely no chance that I would ever have to use a firearm to defend myself or my family, I would still own guns. And the same ones I own now.
-
Okay, fair enough.
But, you "can" hunt and target shoot in most European countries even where there is strict gun control.
Even if you lived on this little island you can shoot targets if you so desire...but hunting is simply not an option, there is nothing to hunt.
What I never want to see is the unrestricted selling of guns and ammunition in "Walmarts" or "Drugs and Ammo" shops (as seen in Phenoix when I was there) in my own country.
I'm not saying you are a bad person or that you shouldn't have the "right" to own guns in your country...just not in mine.
Guns are rooted in American culture and if you don't see yourself as a product of that then I am amazed. I'm a product of another culture.
Allow me to quote from a very wise, moral, learned American who feels the same way you do about guns (but who used this in a totally different context):
"12th Commandment: Thou shalt not pontificate about another country's social laws simply because they are different from your own."
-
Fine with me. It is your choice to live there under those social rules. I believe that all men have the right to keep and bear arms. And, like the right to remain silent, a person can give up a right. You feel better haven given up yours. Whether it was due to location or culture. I like my country's rules better than yours. But that is my opinion.
Either way, while someday I hope to visit your country, please dont't be offended if I don't move there. :)
-
Originally posted by Dune
Either way, while someday I hope to visit your country, please dont't be offended if I don't move there. :)
;) :p
-
No offense taken.
I've visited the US many times...I also have no desire to live there. Way too many guns...and way too many taxes. I've given up the right to pay those taxes...oh my!
:)
-
But...just to clarify. I gave up no "right" to bear arms at all.
Americans were "bestowed" that right in your constitution. Don't make the mistake of thinking we lost something.
-
Slightly off topic:
This is a question to those of you like Dune who own WW2 guns.
How close do games like 'Call of Duty' and 'Medal of Honor' come to firing the real thing (within the limitations of a computer of course) are the sounds, recoil, firing rates well modelled?
Thanks
Ravs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Who knows... but you strengthen my point of view if you're saying that many/most are committed by someone other than the legally registered owner. If not kept in a secure safe like the one Lazs has, guns can be stolen and get into bad hands. Or criminals who want a gun might be willing to pay a premium to get hold of one, and make someone an offer he cannot refuse... Wasn't one of those Columbine kids involved in selling on weapons to the criminal underworld to make a few $?
I don't know if the any of the Columbine kids were invovled in any weapons trade. My point was that if the crime wasn't commited by the registered owner, then the criminal already showed that he was willing to break the law to obtain the gun. You can put all the laws in place you want, and that person will STILL obtain the gun.
I agree on the point of keeping weapons safe and secure. That kinda came to me last night. That means that the owner has to be held liable if it was determined the gun wasn't kept in a safe place, like the top sock drawer.
Here's what I do notice: when a car accident happens, the course of action is to educate the public; when a plane crashes: the course of action is to educate the public; if someone overdoses on some household chemical, the course of action is to educate the public; someone gets shot, the course of action is ban guns? What happened to educating the public?
-
How do you educate someone not to get shot? I mean, not everyone in the US has guns, right? Does Old Mrs Jones need a gun saftey course after someone gets shot in her home town when she has never, ever, owned a gun?
I travel to the US alot....please educate me how not to get shot. I'd particularly like to know how to avoid stray bullets.
Many thanks.
-
Incidently, there was an article recently released showing that 32% of handguns (highest % of any age bracket) were people 65 years and older. Just thought I'd mention that.
-
My point was that if the crime wasn't commited by the registered owner, then the criminal already showed that he was willing to break the law to obtain the gun. You can put all the laws in place you want, and that person will STILL obtain the gun.
I think it's a numbers game, Gecko. The easier that guns are to obtain, then the probability is that more people who shouldn't have them will be able to obtain them.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Curval
How do you educate someone not to get shot? I mean, not everyone in the US has guns, right? Does Old Mrs Jones need a gun saftey course after someone gets shot in her home town when she has never, ever, owned a gun?
Probably the same way you don't educate people how to not get run over. And Mrs. Jones won't need an auto safety course since she doesn't drive.
Educate the gun owners on how to keep their weapons secure when not in use. Make it a requirement and make the owners liable if the weapon was stolen and used in crime. A ban is not an answer to everything. It will not affect criminals who are willing to seek weapons illegaly.
I travel to the US alot....please educate me how not to get shot. I'd particularly like to know how to avoid stray bullets.
Many thanks.
Duck :p
-
A Duck? Where?
:p
-
Originally posted by ravells
I think it's a numbers game, Gecko. The easier that guns are to obtain, then the probability is that more people who shouldn't have them will be able to obtain them.
Ravs
It is a numbers game, yes. It is also a game of supply and demand. If enough criminals want guns, they will get them.
-
Originally posted by Curval
A Duck? Where?
:p
You mean where you can find one? Up to you. You'll have to bring the duck from abroad. US ducks will just increase your chances of getting hit by stray bullets.
-
Clearly you didn't watch enough Looney Toons when you were young.
:)
-
Good point Gecko, although you have to factor in whether someone who might want to buy a gun on a whim would do so if they were not so easy to buy.
I was thinking more of 'spur of the moment gun crimes' resulting in multiple killings, like Columbine or crimes of passion etc rather than criminals to whom the gun is a tool of their trade.
I do have a sad feeling that Lasz might be right about the proliferation of unlicensed weapons being used for crime in the UK reaching such a high volume that at some point law abiding citizens will pass laws for 'concealed carry' here. We are still some way from that point (and I hope we never get there), although I think the US has passed that point by the sheer number of guns floating around in the country.
Although we still have a relatively small incidence of illegal gun ownership compared to you lot, the number appears to be rising (just IMHO - I have not seen any numbers on this).
For the first time in our history, a couple of weeks ago (I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned by the pro gun lobby here) someone with a gun held up diners in a swanky restaurant in London and relieved them of their valuables. My fear is that with the press coverage it received copy cat crimes will follow.
I still don't think we need concealed carry in the UK, but that is something which should always be under review.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Curval
Clearly you didn't watch enough Looney Toons when you were young.
:)
No, I didn't ... so I'm trying to catch up now that I'm not so young :D
-
To Curval - It depends on how you read the Bill of Rights. The Second Amnd, like the first, say that the gov't shall not infringe on a right held by the people. It does not give them the right, it prohibits the gov't from screwing with a right the people already had.
And "I'm going to love him and squeeze him and call him George.".
To Ravells - The only WW2 FPS I've played is Day of Defeat. And that's been awhile. From what I remember, the rates of fire seemed to be pretty close. One thing I do remember is that for some reason the K98 Mauser did more damage than the M1 Garand. Which was silly. Whatever differences in velocity, weight of bullet and energy existed (and I couldn't tell you without looking it up) would be so minimal as to be irrelavent in terms of killing power.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Good point Gecko, although you have to factor in whether someone who might want to buy a gun on a whim would do so if they were not so easy to buy.
I was thinking more of 'spur of the moment gun crimes' resulting in multiple killings, like Columbine or crimes of passion etc rather than criminals to whom the gun is a tool of their trade.
Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, the Columbine kids didn't not own the guns legally. Even now, if you want to shoot someone in spur of the moment you're not gonna go by the weapon legally. Still gotta wait 3 days. So illegal weapons are still the best source. Crimes of passion is another topic. However with spur of the moment a criminal would usually seek a weapon that's readilly available ... and not neccessarily a gun, but a knife, or a car, or a baseball bat. And even then a gun ban makes no difference. Turning a shooting into stabbing does not help anyone. A person still dies.
I think in this case it's best to think of premeditated VS spur of the moment (I can't think of the antonym for premeditated ... English is not my first language :D). If a crime is premeditated, obtaining a weapon to commit the crime will be part of the plan. If that plan calls for a gun, a gun will be obtained ... probably not legally anyway.
I do have a sad feeling that Lasz might be right about the proliferation of unlicensed weapons being used for crime in the UK reaching such a high volume that at some point law abiding citizens will pass laws for 'concealed carry' here. We are still some way from that point (and I hope we never get there), although I think the US has passed that point by the sheer number of guns floating around in the country.
Although we still have a relatively small incidence of illegal gun ownership compared to you lot, the number appears to be rising (just IMHO - I have not seen any numbers on this).
For the first time in our history, a couple of weeks ago (I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned by the pro gun lobby here) someone with a gun held up diners in a swanky restaurant in London and relieved them of their valuables. My fear is that with the press coverage it received copy cat crimes will follow.
I still don't think we need concealed carry in the UK, but that is something which should always be under review.
Ravs
-
Well okay Mr. Semantics...;)
Dune, logically those who were living in the United States, other than Native Indians, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights came from somewhere else. Many, if not MOST of these people were from the Euro"nanny" countries who did not formally have the codified "right" to bear arms.
So...my read is that the Bill of Rights is granting this "right" to those who didn't have it before.
I just cannot see it the other way.
-
curval... you personally have given up nothing since your rights were deprived before you were born but... the right to defend yuourself is an inherant right... it is also a right that Uk citizens had for most of their history... it is only relatively recently that they have been deprived of them..
ravells... you make my point quite well.... I know what it feels like to shoot WWII firearms because... well... I do it. Saturday I went over to my gun safe 10' from my puter in my home and took out an M1Garrand and a 1911 style 45 auto plus a Walther PPk I coulda took a smelly (brit 303) or borrowed my brothers 91 naggant...but... I went upstairs to the loading bench and got a couple hundred rounds of ammo and packed it all int to Hell Caminio and drove to the range.... coulda went to my brothers house in the country tho...
The guns probly cost me a grand or 2 and the ammo I shot up was probly about 20 buks worth... range fees fifty cents with my membership.... outdoor range...
If you lived here you could have your own or go with me and then you would know.... If it was fun.... you could simply buy your own smelly or naggant for maybe 150 bucks each and have at it.
beetle.... I am shocked as I know all the other Americans are on this board that a liberal newspaper would run anti gun articles.... this must surely mean that the entire country is against firearms ownership.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
Well okay Mr. Semantics...;)
Dune, logically those who were living in the United States, other than Native Indians, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights came from somewhere else. Many, if not MOST of these people were from the Euro"nanny" countries who did not formally have the codified "right" to bear arms.
So...my read is that the Bill of Rights is granting this "right" to those who didn't have it before.
From the English Bill of Rights, 1689:
"7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."
It wasn't a foreign concept when the US Constitution was written, although there's probably as much controversy about "as allowed by law" as there is about "a well-regulated militia" and the definition of "infringed" in the US Bill of Rights. But Americans didn't invent it the idea - the English codified it before we were a nation.
No one to blame but yourselves. :)
-
Okay...let's now see the German codification, the Dutch codification, the Swedish codification, etc etc etc..smarty pants.
and what if I am Catholic? I mean those rights are extended to Protestants only.
-
at various times in all countries that I know about.... ciizens were allowed to go around armed and to defend themselves.... it is usually only fearful tyrants who remove these intrinsic rights from time to time...
course now that we have allowed women to tell us what we can do.... It is no longer just tyrants that want to see us disarmed.
tyrants and women... the former do it out of fear of their citizens and the latter do it out of ignorance and emotion. comes out the same.
no offense to you curval since you live in a bubble in what is basicly a medium sized ammusment park and as such, aren't prone to the same difficulties as a real nation.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
Okay...let's now see the German codification, the Dutch codification, the Swedish codification, etc etc etc..smarty pants.
and what if I am Catholic? I mean those rights are extended to Protestants only.
The idea was to show that the idea wasn't originally American. I'm moderately well versed in American law, have basic knowledge of British, and know next to nothing about those of other countries. While there were colonists from all over the world here, the ones who laid the foundation here were primarily English, English decendants, or had studied in England. As such, it's no surprise that they drew heavily from the English Bill of Rights.
And as for Catholics, the English Bill of Rights is a shining example of the religious tolerance that springs forth when church and state start mixing. :)
I'm not an expert on English history by any means, but IIRC anyone who wasn't a Protestant was a 2nd class citizen - especially Catholics (or Papists, as they're called in the English Bill of Rights).
-
Of course the idea wasn't originally American. That would take original thought. ;) Much of that thought was done in Europe long before the existance of your country. I mean, even my bubble of a medium sized amusement park is over 200 years older than the United States.
But, your point is well taken..I'm just hacking on you.
Interesting though, because as these rights seems to have been extended to only a certian portion of the population my logic still stands that the US bill of rights was the first codification of the right to defend oneself for the ENTIRE country and ALL of its inhabitants.
-
Way I recall it, Tarmac,was that the Protestants (for example Queen Elizabeth) were quite happy to have a secualar state. The problem was that the non Prots wanted to oppress everyone under their brand of religion (for example the puritains).
Fast forward some history and this lot of malcontents who found they could go somewhere else and live in a place where they could oppress their communities in peace went to America.
The mormons spring to mind.
Where do you think your wackos came from? We exported them!
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Curval
Interesting though, because as these rights seems to have been extended to only a certian portion of the population my logic still stands that the US bill of rights was the first codification of the right to defend oneself for the ENTIRE country and ALL of its inhabitants.
Might want to tell the slaves that they had the right to own guns all along. :p
-
Originally posted by ravells
Way I recall it, Tarmac,was that the Protestants (for example Queen Elizabeth) were quite happy to have a secualar state. The problem was that the non Prots wanted to oppress everyone under their brand of religion (for example the puritains).
Fast forward some history and this lot of malcontents who found they could go somewhere else and live in a place where they could oppress their communities in peace went to America.
The mormons spring to mind.
Where do you think your wackos came from? We exported them!
Ravs
Why did the Papists (catholics) get specifically named in your bill of rights then? Why not the puritans as well (who, I believe, are also protestant)?
Also, Mormonism sprang up entirely in the US, after independence, IIRC. I believe in the mid 1800's or so.
-
Fair point Tarmac...
Clearly there were tyrants ruling the US back then.
:p
-
I need to do some research, but I think you guys are getting mixed up. Weren't the puritans merely really "pure" protestants? By definition "protestants" were named for there protest for being under the religious rules of the Pope...in Italy.
Tarmac...the papists weren't named...the protestants were according to your quote.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Fair point Tarmac...
Clearly there were tyrants ruling the US back then.
:p
Not everyone can be as enlightened as I am. ;)
-
Simple. Because the papists were the biggest religious oppressive group. Ever since Luther and Calvin and the advent of printing, the pope found his power slipping down the plug hole.
I'm fairly certain (could be wrong) that the originator of the Mormons...Joseph Smith, I think? (yes they were 19th century) originated from England, there is a good Sherlock Holmes novel about this...I think it's 'A Study in Scarlet'. I'm sure Conan Doyle would have done the research but I cant vouch for it.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I need to do some research, but I think you guys are getting mixed up. Weren't the puritans merely really "pure" protestants? By definition "protestants" were named for there protest for being under the religious rules of the Pope...in Italy.
Tarmac...the papists weren't named...the protestants were according to your quote.
My quote doesn't mention them, but Papists are singled out in the document, repeatedly. In the list of grievances/preamble, they are specifically mentioned in regards to being armed:
"By causing several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law."
Protestants, by my working definition, are Christians that do not follow the Catholic church - ie those that broke off in the protestant reformation in the 1500's or followed suit later. So you've got a clear split in Christianity between Catholics and Protestants, with protestantism being further split into various denominations.
-
Originally posted by ravells
I'm fairly certain (could be wrong) that the originator of the Mormons...Joseph Smith, I think? (yes they were 19th century) originated from England, there is a good Sherlock Holmes novel about this...I think it's 'A Study in Scarlet'. I'm sure Conan Doyle would have done the research but I cant vouch for it.
Quite possible that he was English, but he shouldn't have been a Mormon before he came to America, as he had his vision out west somewhere (IIRC). Mormonism shouldn't even have existed before his prophecy, so how could mormons oppress anyone back in England at the time of the English Bill of Rights?
-
I'm guessing he was some weirdo who had a cult in mind which is why he left England.
I'll have to research the 'weird religious cults who went to America' subject sometime else, but there were quite a few who went there when America was being colonised. Ironically, because they had the freedom to oppress their own small communities who went with them. The English were pleased because they found colonists and got rid of a local problem. Of course that caught up with the English when they all started revolting, but that was for very different reasons.
As for the 'vision' well...hmm
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
I'm guessing he was some weirdo who had a cult in mind which is why he left England.
As for the 'vision' well...hmm
Ravs
There's a wonderful South Park episode about the foundation of Mormonism - I'd highly recommend downloading it. :D
-
ohhh! love to see it! do you know the title of the episode?
-
Right..okay, I'm with you now.
So the English Bill of Rights as it relates to self protection is essentially a "get back" for Protestants, because prior to 1689 this right was extended to Catholics (Papists) only.
A little selective quoting going on there bud. ;)
No need to explain what a protestant is to me old chap...I'm one of 'em.:)
Sooooo...where are we, and what was the point of all this history again?
Ah yes...it "kind of" proves Dune had a good point...in a very round-about circular kind of way.
Guns are indeed cute and fund. ;)
I still don't want them freely availiable in my country though.
-
http://www.xmission.com/~research/about/
The Mormon religion is based upon the story and religious teachings of Joseph Smith. Smith was the founding prophet and first elder/president of the church. The original church was established in western New York state on 6 April 1830 in the Township of Manchester, Ontario County, New York (new research has found this to be the organizational site).
Joseph Smith was a prophet dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
-SW
-
"All About Mormons," episode 712 (season 7 episode 12), I believe.
ed: Apparently SW has seen it, juding from his song about Joseph Smith. :)
-
Ta muchly!, Tarmac :)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Right..okay, I'm with you now.
So the English Bill of Rights as it relates to self protection is essentially a "get back" for Protestants, because prior to 1689 this right was extended to Catholics (Papists) only.
A little selective quoting going on there bud. ;)
No need to explain what a protestant is to me old chap...I'm one of 'em.:)
Sooooo...where are we, and what was the point of all this history again?
Ah yes...it "kind of" proves Dune had a good point...in a very round-about circular kind of way.
Guns are indeed cute and fund. ;)
I still don't want them freely availiable in my country though.
I'm lost now too. I don't remember what we were arguing about either. :)
I don't believe that the right extended only to Catholics before 1689 - it was probably universal.
I still don't want them freely availiable in my country though.
I know that, as much as you know that I want them that way. But it sure is fun to argue about on teh intardnet. :D
-
Hong Kong SAR Firearms And Ammunition Ordinance (http://www.justice.gov.hk/blis.nsf/d2769881999f47b3482564840019d2f9/bec5e0b96ff7cd67c825648300287fa4?OpenDocument)
Works for us. 3am strolls around the city lack the adrenaline rush of most US cities though. ;)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Hong Kong SAR Firearms And Ammunition Ordinance (http://www.justice.gov.hk/blis.nsf/d2769881999f47b3482564840019d2f9/bec5e0b96ff7cd67c825648300287fa4?OpenDocument)
Works for us. 3am strolls around the city lack the adrenaline rush of most US cities though. ;)
:lol
Yeah, I remember stolling round Singapore in the small hours - no graffiti, no bums on the streets, no chewing gum on the pavement. Felt very safe... :cool:
Dune! How's life in America's 6th largest city? :p:lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
:lol
Yeah, I remember stolling round Singapore in the small hours - no graffiti, no bums on the streets, no chewing gum on the pavement. Felt very safe... :cool:
Dune! How's life in America's 6th largest city? :p:lol
Hehe, strictly speaking, you're arguing against yourself there, beet1e - In Singapore almost all males are issued with and must use a firearm - it's compulsory ;). Although I doubt anyone is allowed to own a private one.
-
Hi Dead,
I think Singaporeans have to do compulsory military service, but obtaining a license for a firearm is very difficult. The penalty for owning an illegal firearm or ammunition is death in Malayisa, I believe Singapore has the same law, but I'm not sure.
Then again, Singapore is a very small and prosperous country so one wouldn't expect much crime there anyway.
Ravs
-
I guess, like beetle, I could declare that the poll was a success ant that most people who responded felt that their countries firearms laws were too strict. Of course.... the poll was a lot more fair than his..
As for england and inerant rights... england predates firearms but it allways felt that being armed was a right... this right was taken away from time to time by various tyrants but it was never for, nor did it ever, increase the safety of the populace when said tyrants removed these inherant rights.... since women have been allowed to vote things have changed... it is a different tyrant who is taking away your freedoms now.
The U.S. allways had firearms so they were "arms" as seen by our constitutton.. the U.S. constitution owes a lot to england and it's rule of law... we took the best parts and threw out the baggage that comes with being a royalist, imperialist nation.
The right to defend yourself is an inherant right.
lazs
-
I don't have time right now, but as Beetle did so maybe you could too...please tabulate your results. I think you will find that the results are pretty much the same as his.
-
well curval... up to page two...
About 13 people feel that their laws ar too strict in some way or another.. a couple of those felt that while being too strict in some ways they were just right in most things.
about 8 people felt that their laws were just right...
only two people felt that the laws weren't strict enough in their country.
a lot of people didnt say say one way or the other but argues against the not strict enough crowd.
seems most like to have the freedom to decide how they defend themselves.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
About 13 people feel that their laws ar too strict in some way or another.. a couple of those felt that while being too strict in some ways they were just right in most things.
Well lazs...I will do some checking later, but even a casual glance at your results have a great deal of subjective information which we can argue about.
"some way or another"? "most things"?
Strange but Beetle's poll had distinctively less interpretation or subjective answers.
-
Hardly.... I was giving the benifiet of the doubt... if it was black and white too strict/not strict enough.... then we could just leave it at that... say for instance...the guy said his were fine except some things were too strict...
that would mean by anyones interpretation that he felt his countries laws were too strict... if he said they were fine but a couple od things needed to be stricter.... that would mean that they felt the laws were not strict enough..
I was just giving aditional data.
some... like rip... don't really make it clear how they feel.. they didn't answer the question.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess, like beetle, I could declare that the poll was a success ant that most people who responded felt that their countries firearms laws were too strict.
You would be declaring your poll to be a success based on the result rather than the number and diversity of the participants. That just shows what we knew all along: that you started it with a preconceived agenda that you wanted to fulfil, ie. you asked your subjective questions with a view to getting the answers you wanted rather than conducting an objective poll to achieve a balanced view. Curval was quick to spot what you were up to. But that's OK, Lazs. You are well known on this board as the resident spin merchant; we expected nothing less from you, and nothing more. But don't feel bad; within the T&C of the BBS, you're allowed to ask whatever you like.
I don't believe I declared my poll "a success", though indeed it was in terms of the number and diversity of respondents - replies from at least 15 countries, plus a few unsolicited replies from the USA.
Spin away, Lazs! Spin it one more time...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Dune! How's life in America's 6th largest city? :p:lol
6th?
The Arizona Republic
July 10, 2003
Judy Nichols
Phoenix may be only months from becoming the nation's fifth-largest city, muscling out Philadelphia.
Mesa is bigger than Atlanta.
And Gilbert is the fastest-growing town in America.
Population estimates released today by the Census Bureau continue to show unchecked growth in Arizona's cities and those in other Western states. Valley officials and growth experts aren't surprised. But Philadelphians are confronting their imminent fall from the top five with Rocky-like groans of "Yo, Adrian."
Phoenix's population grew 3.8 percent since 2000, faster than any other top 10 city, to a new estimated total of 1.37 million, census data showed.
That's a mere 120,271 people behind Philadelphia, the nation's fifth-largest city for decades.
But not for much longer.
A University of Pennsylvania demographer did some figuring and decided that Phoenix will actually knock Philly out of the No. 5 slot by next May.
Only for another month or three.
:aok
-
Dune - Phoenix will become #5 on the same day as AH2 goes live. ;)
-
beetle it matters not what I wanted the results to be or what my preconcieved notions were. What matters is that my poll question was fair and offered people the opportunity to answer It was a success because it got fair answers from a lot of people...
yours on the other hand was in the "do you still beat your wife?" category so far as poll questions go.
lazs
-
Lazs, I don't give a flying crap what you think of my poll. It was intended only for non-Americans. Everyone understood it perfectly. Except you. Well there's a big freaking surprise. :rolleyes: I'm free to post whatever poll I want. And there's nothing you can do about it, so get over it already.
-
You are speaking for "everyone" now? or maybe you took a "how many undestood my poll" poll?
If you did I missed it but it would most likely be...
"did you understand my poll and are you intelligent with the ability to understand things that you read and do you think reading should be taught in school?"
a simple yes or no will suffice.
lazs
-
What are you saying? That I'm not allowed to ask questions on this BBS, without having some nanny figure acting as adjudicator to tell me whether what I asked was "fair"? Don't you come from that last bastion of freedom, land of free speech? And yet here you are, telling me how I should/should not pose questions to the other BBS subscribers.
Sometimes, one is not enough... :rolleyes::rolleyes: