Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on August 05, 2004, 10:15:34 AM
-
http://www.americandaily.com/article/2920
-
COMMON SENSE..........what happened?
-
I would just like to say that I for one have already sent a letter and call my rep on this matter and strongley approve this bill.
-
Makes too much sense to ever become a law.
-
But it's worth a try to get it to become a law right.
-
What I find odd is that so few of our citizens (and no forigners on this board it seems) know the following facts... given these facts... how can you be for any gun control other than harsher penalties for crime committed with firearms?
"However, the "Findings" section (remarkably) includes some surprising statistics. These are facts most Second Amendment supporters already know, but it is significant to see them included in an actual congressional bill as supporting documentation:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals – more than 6,500 people a day. In other words, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. This is NUTS.
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty (creating a privileged class). Likewise, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them. This ‘should’ be a no-brainer.
H.R. 648 is an artfully crafted bill that even moderates in Congress should be able to embrace. Opponents will find themselves on thin partisan ice. "
lazs
-
*shrug* works for me...but my position still stands, you dont need a m-16 to defend yourself and the harder it is for criminals to get that sort of weapon the easier it is for families to protect themselves
-
a M-16 is not an AR-15. Ownership of a fully automatic weapon has been strictly regulated since the 1930's. Please learn the difference.
-
when was the last time an m16 was used against citizens by a criminal? When was the last time one was used in a crime?
maybe a time or two every few years at most... hardly worth mentioning unless you are a lying scumbag, sensation seeking politician.
-
All types of firearms should be legal and distributed free to every single citizen in the world. This would make the world a better safer place.
-
Hmm thought the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to protect the rights of the people from any and all that might trample those rights.
Seem to recall something about having and being able to use the current military firearm should it be necassary.
I was given to understand, in grammer school, that is the true reason behind the 2nd amendment anyway.
Sorta like the Swiss.
Gives the people some teeth :)
Oh something that helps me understand why some are so very willling to commit terrible acts is....
look in the mirror. Smile or grin or just show your teeth. Now start in the middle. Don't matter top or bottom. Count to 3 going left or right. What tooth is that?
It's a fang, you are a preditor.
Many claim that even though we are preditors we are intelligent enough to overcome or baser instincts and not be preditory. Hmmm just like in everything else there are always some that can not or do not want to control their preditory instincts.
Far too many seem to think CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL is the answer and want so very much to MIND OTHER PEOPLES BUSINESS.
Preditors understand force. Preditors seek the weak and single that wander from the herd. Preditors use force to prey on their victims.
It's early and I'm just wakin up so this probably as many spelling errors etc.......
-
Article is over 18 months old.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
when was the last time an m16 was used against citizens by a criminal? When was the last time one was used in a crime?
maybe a time or two every few years at most... hardly worth mentioning unless you are a lying scumbag, sensation seeking politician.
would probably be used more if you could just walk down to the nearest gun store and buy one though...thanks for supporting my point
-
Originally posted by Curval
All types of firearms should be legal and distributed free to every single citizen in the world. This would make the world a better safer place.
might as well start WW3.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
might as well start WW3.
No way. Ask lazs...more guns equals less crime and more saftey for all.
-
...and everyone...please, PLEASE stop picking on poor defensless M16s. The poor little things have done nothing wrong. It is only when bad people use them that people get killed. So please stop picking on the weapon.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Curval
No way. Ask lazs...more guns equals less crime and more saftey for all.
lies i tell j00. gun's+terrorist=ww3.
-
"All types of firearms should be legal and distributed free to every single citizen in the world. This would make the world a better safer place."
maybe... maybe not but it certainly wouold be a lot gfreer and wouldn't hurt.
If the world was full of nothing but nice people then it wouldn't matter... If the world had bad people in it then the good people would need something to defend themselves with. Which of your neigbors are you frieghtened of curval? Who are you so scared of on your island that you need him to be disarmed?
vorticon... Are you saying that there are no M16's in America or that... if they were legal then the law abiding(the ones who don't have em now because... they are law abiding) would buy em and the mere act of owning one would cause em to change and become violent criminals?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vorticon... Are you saying that there are no M16's in America or that... if they were legal then the law abiding(the ones who don't have em now because... they are law abiding) would buy em and the mere act of owning one would cause em to change and become violent criminals?
lazs
im saying that given the choice between a m16 and a 9mm a criminal will always choose a m16...
-
"...and everyone...please, PLEASE stop picking on poor defensless M16s. The poor little things have done nothing wrong. It is only when bad people use them that people get killed. So please stop picking on the weapon.
Thanks."
How do ya pick on an inanimate object of metal and plastic?
"quote:Originally posted by B17Skull12
might as well start WW3.
No way. Ask lazs...more guns equals less crime and more saftey for all."
Actually there are provable stat's that just such a thing works, at least in the U.S. Over 30 states now allow people to carry concealed weapons. This trend has been steadly growing for some years and crime has been dropping in every state where these concealed carry has become allowed. D.C. is the murder capitol of the U.S. D.C. where no one may own any firearm.
"quote:Originally posted by lazs2
when was the last time an m16 was used against citizens by a criminal? When was the last time one was used in a crime?
maybe a time or two every few years at most... hardly worth mentioning unless you are a lying scumbag, sensation seeking politician.
would probably be used more if you could just walk down to the nearest gun store and buy one though...thanks for supporting my point"
Supporting???
Hmm then you are not aware that the weapons addressed here are perfectly legal in several different forms? You can buy (m16 types, m14/m1a types, FAL, HKG3, SKS, AK Types, CETME, bushmaster, BAR, browning M30, etc..) in semi-auto version? However the full-automatic version of all these are illegal without a BATF and state license!
"*shrug* works for me...but my position still stands, you dont need a m-16 to defend yourself and the harder it is for criminals to get that sort of weapon the easier it is for families to protect themselves"
I disagree, my position is, this position does NOT stand anywhere in anyway. You or me or anyone could find themselves in a position that required allot of fire power! Who can see into the future? Who can tell what tomorrow will bring? Another L.A. Riot with shops being burned? Another L.A. Riot where several shop keepers, using semi-automatic weapons, drove away would be looters? Where sections of the neigbhorhood blocked off their streets with barricades and stood armed at those barricades fending off all comers UNTIL law enforcement finally showed up.
Who decides for anyone what they may or may not be need to defend themselves and their families? Where did this RIGHT to decide for others come from? Why does it seem there are so many people minding other peoples business??
Your saying some lieing, cheating, on someones payroll over and above the salary taken from the people, politician should have the right to decide for me? Some appiontee placed in position by the above? The people? They aren't, not a one of em, supposed to have the right to trample my rights!
The NEA no longer supports the teaching of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Don't seem to wanna teach the Bill of Rights anymore either. After all if you don't know your rights how can you know when their being violated?
Oh and BTW the criminals prefer the small eazy to conceal 9mm weapons vs the larger harder to hide m16 types.
And criminal types generally turn away from people that are armed because they don't wanna get hurt or killed. After all there are plenty of unarmed people to prey upon.
Hmmm did everyone posting actually read the article?
-
just remember 9 outta 10 times the bad guy has a better gun than you. vort=righT!
-
Vorticon......m16...
How would you keep any type of gun out of bad guys hand. How many laws would it take before a bad guy would say I better not use gun...
Lazs didnt support your point.......You can go to any gun store and buy a ruger mini 14 in .223 caliber...In my opinion semi-auto for semi-auto it is a better weapon...more accurate. much less prone to jamming,almost need a mud flood before jamming. As with most semi-auto rate of fire depends on how fast you can pull trigger. and more rugged. How a weapon looks is of no value to it performance.....Yet they are very rately used in crime.....any thoughts?
-
"just remember 9 outta 10 times the bad guy has a better gun than you. vort=righT!"
Does Vort even have a firearm? It's even worse if you have nothing. Then the criminal type can take you using better odds, like 2 to 1, or a knife, club, chain, most any handy item laying around, like a bottle, or piece of rusty pipe. Or maybe the criminal has been pumping iron for self-defense while in prison and can just beat you down.
The Law of the Jungle applies ALL THE TIME with most criminals. You think the criminal is gonna change his view point just for you?
Why cause you look so civilized? Cause you got your woman and kids with you? Cause you need the money to pay your bills? Cause you are such a nice person?
Hey maybe deep down inside you know what would happen and so you avoid places where it might happen? What happens if those places become less and less available? Even non-existant?
I know cause it hasn't happened to you yet therefore it never will :D
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im saying that given the choice between a m16 and a 9mm a criminal will always choose a m16...
Not if he's smart he wont. Unsless he needs an accurate weapon to pick people off at 300 meters or greater.....then again there are ALOT more accurate weapons than the M-16/AR-15 readily available for alot cheaper.
As far as a robbery or a forced entry crime the M16 is also a terrible weapons. It is far to long and bulky to be effective (it does make a good club I have to admit)
Not to mention you cannot conceal it unless you are wearing a trench coat....In wich case that makes you suspect if you are wearing one in the dead of summer.
The 9MM is actually less suseptable at jamming when poping rounds off quickly.
point being, the M-16 is a terrible CQB (close quarters battle) weapon.
Unless you are covered head to toe in body armor and robbing a bank in downtown LA during the middle of the day while having a viscious gunbattle w/ the LAPD I dont think it's an effective "criminal" type weapon.
Just my opinion based on experience.....with the M16 not crime ;)
-
Couple days ago 4 to 6 people killed with baseball bat in s,ca.
voticon.....tomarrow this same person enters your home wishing to harm your family. Besides calling 911 what are your options.
?
-
Curval is correct, and I've had a change of heart. I've written to my MP to ask him to lobby for a change in the law that would allow me to arm my home. I don't want a sissy M16. I want a belt fed machine gun, and maybe a few hand grenades in case a few of the bad guys make it all the way to my door.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Couple days ago 4 to 6 people killed with baseball bat in s,ca.
voticon.....tomarrow this same person enters your home wishing to harm your family. Besides calling 911 what are your options.
?
other than legal hand guns, rifles and 2 by 4's...nothing
-
Beetle......overkill.......
Lots of overkill there beetle , and think of the cost of all that ammo, I am going broke just thinking about it.
Heres one for you he he.....You just step from your car at the mall. All the sudden 4 terrorist stationed here and there open up with ak's. You go to your trunk to get what?
1. tire iron.
2. m 16 with 3 clips.
3 bow and arrows
4. hide under car and call 911.
Dont say cant happen,that would be dumb even for a liberal....not saying you are.
-
Vorticon.......sorry.....
2by 4 you would have little chance as would I....But I thought you were against the ownership of guns or I would have never asked that question.....GEES once again I stand corrected...thats twice in 1 day.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Beetle......overkill.......
Lots of overkill there beetle , and think of the cost of all that ammo, I am going broke just thinking about it.
Heres one for you he he.....You just step from your car at the mall. All the sudden 4 terrorist stationed here and there open up with ak's. You go to your trunk to get what?
1. tire iron.
2. m 16 with 3 clips.
3 bow and arrows
4. hide under car and call 911.
Dont say cant happen,that would be dumb even for a liberal....not saying you are.
You don't seem to know much about Britain, so I'll answer you with that in mind. [list=1]- we spell it tyre, but I don't have a tyre iron in the passenger compartment of my car. We have malls, but I rarely shop at them (hate crowds) but AFAIK there is no recorded instance of terrorists with AKs in shopping malls. A more likely scenario, and one which we saw in the 1970s, was an IRA bomb planted in a shop front - lots of glass... If AQ attack us, it's going to be a bomb much like as seen in Madrid.
- An M16 isn't going to protect me from a bomb.
- bows and arrows, maybe, but would take up a lot of space.
- Calling 911 here would get you bugger all. Our national emergency number is 999, not 911
Other than that, it was a good effort. :aok
-
Machine guns ARE still legal to own in the US. its just that at $5-20K each the average joe can't afford to own one. The rich still can, but the rest of us can't afford our 2nd amendment rights. But thats a topic for another day...
I'm not a big fan of the m16 family, but that seems to be the current example so I'll run with it. Yes I agree an ar15 is not the best option for home defense. That is if you live in a sardine can apartment or in the suburbs where houses are packed tighter than Elton John's backside. In that case, a shotgun or pistol w/ HP ammo is your best bet.
However, alot of us live out in the country. Out here you need more range and power than a pistol or shotgun can provide. (preferably something in the .30cal range.)
Sure bolt guns are fine for single targets, semis are good too. But what about a truckload of armed men? I hope you're a good shot with your hunting rifle. And if you've got a mini-14 I hope its alot more accurate than the one I had.
Now this is the point where someone says "a truckload of armed men? thats redikulus!"
Well maybe it is, maybe it ain't. You can never tell what the future will behold, and I think its good to be prepared.
What happends if you live on a ranch near a major city and that city is attacked with a WMD of some sort? Don't say it can't or won't happen. Terrorists are trying to do it, and will continue to try.
I'll tell you what will happen, hundereds of thousands perhaps MILLIONS of people will be fleeing the city. The ones that make it out may be infected with disease, or covered in radioactive dust or other harmful chemicals. Where will these people go? Wherever there is food and shelter. Where is food and shelter? At your ranch thats where!
Will they ask politly if they can live in your house and eat your family's food? Doubtful.
Desperate people take desperate measues. It not too hard to believe that starving people would band together and try to take over a ranch or farm that won't share its livestock and crops.
If you depend on those livestock and crops to feed your family, you better be willing and able to defend them.
Now thats just one scenario that my paranoid mind can conjure up. But what it boils down to is one must beable to defend himself and his family under any circumstances. And thats hard to do with a board with a nail in it.
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
Desperate people take desperate measues. It not too hard to believe that starving people would band together and try to take over a ranch or farm that won't share its livestock and crops.
If you depend on those livestock and crops to feed your family, you better be willing and able to defend them.
Now thats just one scenario that my paranoid mind can conjure up. But what it boils down to is one must beable to defend himself and his family under any circumstances. And thats hard to do with a board with a nail in it.
Good post - and that scenario is exactly what's playing out in Zimbabwe these days. White farmers are being subjected to Robert Mugabe's land-grab... and there's not a single thing they can do about it, guns or no guns. If they DO resist, Mugabe will send a larger possé, only this time the farm's rightful owners will be lucky to escape with their lives.
If you think that a force of that kind can repelled with an M16, time to do a reality check. :aok
-
... better just to be totally helpless and just take it in the bellybutton for anyone with a stick rather than be prepaired the best you can. :aok
-
If you think that a force of that kind can repelled with an M16, time to do a reality check.
I don't live in zimbabwe, I live in florida. And I'm not talking about well organized and well armed militants. I'm talking about lighty armed starving refugees who want to steal your food. In that case a family armed with m16's (preferably FALS or M14's) probibly COULD keep them at bay. Or ateast force them to plunder elsewhere.
One man's family can't be expected to repel and army. But a couple of machine guns would go along ways against looters.
-
Beetle......sorry didnt notice about england. Yes you are right if it happened in England you have no chance whatso ever.I kinda thought no matter where we are from we were talking about here in America, my bad.
I dont think PTI was talking about a stand and fight event.
For the most part America is still the fight and die type.For the most part europe is the talk and die type. If what is happening in zimbabwe happened here we would not fight 1 ranch at a time but create a larger force by joining together. The true reality check should be does the larger force want to face whatever with m16s or do they want to try useing resolutions.....S orry got to go with m16s lol.
-
"I'm saying that given the choice between a m16 and a 9mm a criminal will always choose a m16..."
Are you high? The M16 is the worst weapon our military has ever had to carry.
They just keep on giving us inferior weapons. Like when in 96 they took our .45's away as a sidearm and gave us that POS Beretta M9.
Give me an M14 or an SKS any day.
-
Originally posted by Wonko_the_Sane
Are you high? The M16 is the worst weapon our military has ever had to carry.
They just keep on giving us inferior weapons. Like when in 96 they took our .45's away as a sidearm and gave us that POS Beretta M9.
Give me an M14 or an SKS any day.
OK i have to disagree with you on both points but only half way.
M16s....great weapons....NO.....worst weapon.....no again
.45s.....great weapons....yea.....old weapons.....yea again
I remember shooting a .45 on the range and every time I fired I had to hit the but of it on the palm of my hand in order for it to shoot any were close to were the last round was shot.
If you are saying the .45 is better for stopping power....I definatly agree. The fact was that all the .45s in the inventory were getting dirt old and unreliable. I couldnt venture a guess why they switched to the 9mm but it aint THAT bad of a weapon.
I definatly agree with you on the M14.....it may have been heavier than the 16 but it was definatly more reliable.
-
I based my assesment of the M16 based solely on reliability. If a weapon is not reliable it is a POS. Just like the M9 9mm. slide jams ALOT..stovepipes ALOT.
-
Ahh yes the doomsday, killin citty dwellers on your ranch perimiter deal....
Lemme see, I'd like one of these.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8.php
all versions of course, assault w/grenade, carbine and SAW type
Next surely some sort of MP5..
Of course why not give a UMP 45 a try too..
And just for the coolness factor.
http://www.heckler-koch.de/html/english/behoerden/02_submachineguns/02_01_index.html
Finally also an M4 because they look mean as hell with all those rails and accesories. :)
Of course I just couldnt do without heavier weapons...
M2 50cal, gotta have it.
MK19 40mm grenade launcher, for the pesky determined ones...
MG42 (MG3 will do too, gotta have that look)
-
What is unreliable about the M-16a2..?
-
Originally posted by Otto
What is unreliable about the M-16a2..?
it doesn't handle dirt/sand/mud very well. Basically you have to keep it very clean in order for it to function. Thats hard to do on a battlefield (so I hear.)
Also, I've seen more than a couple AR's at the gun range have trouble with cheap ammo.
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
it doesn't handle dirt/sand/mud very well. Basically you have to keep it very clean in order for it to function. Thats hard to do on a battlefield (so I hear.)
Also, I've seen more than a couple AR's at the gun range have trouble with cheap ammo.
that pretty much sums it up. If you drop the thing in the dirt chances are it will not shoot when you pick it up. In a desert environment you have to clean the thing at least twice a day.
The big thing with the 507th mait co and jesica lynch is they had piss poor weapons cleaning. Allmost all of their rifles jammed when those that did tried to return fire.
One of the guys that is a true hero of that engagement nearly broke his hand hitting the forward assist on his weapon while firing it.
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
it doesn't handle dirt/sand/mud very well. Basically you have to keep it very clean in order for it to function. Thats hard to do on a battlefield (so I hear.)
Also, I've seen more than a couple AR's at the gun range have trouble with cheap ammo.
Let me rephrase the question. What are the reliablity problems with the M-16a2 if you keep it clean and fire quality ammo?
-
Blaming a gun on a murder is like blaming a misspelled word on a pencil.
-
Originally posted by Otto
Let me rephrase the question. What are the reliablity problems with the M-16a2 if you keep it clean and fire quality ammo?
It is a closed bolt weapon. The bolt needs to be all the way forward in the bolt guide grooves in order for the firing pin to strike the round. If it has the slightest bit of debree in there it does not fire.
Sure if i'm on a rifle range this is not a problem but if I'm taking incoming fire and have to dive for cover or trudge through the mud the weapon gets dirty and becomes unreliable.
Besides cleaning and quality of ammo it is a fairly accurate weapon. With the proper training a marksman can hit a point target at 550 meters and an area target at 800 meters under Ideal weather conditions.
-
Originally posted by Jasta
Blaming a gun on a murder is like blaming a misspelled word on a pencil.
tell that to family members of people who have had guns misfire and kill brother's etc.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
tell that to family members of people who have had guns misfire and kill brother's etc.
You still need a bullet in the gun. You still need a condition were that weapon happens to be pointed at somone OR you have to have a condition were somone is not properly trained on firearm safety.
People who dont know how to drive kill people every day on the highway and its never the cars fault.
-
Nevar? how bout when the brake fails?
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Nevar? how bout when the brake fails?
do guns have brakes?
-
no, but they usually aren't suposed to kill while fiddling with them trying to un jam.
i am not in particular to fond of guns. as you can see. a friendly nearly killed him self because he and another kid where playing around and it accidentally misfired and almost killed him. playing in the parents room it fell from above, misfired, hit him in the head.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
fiddling with them trying to un jam.
because he and another kid where playing around
playing in the parents room
Do you see what your are typing here?
Did you not actually read what you in fact typed?
1. You dont "fiddle" with weapons
If you or somone is killed while you "fiddle" it is not the guns fault it is the person's
2. You do not leave guns around or easily accessable to children
If the gun is shot by somone who does not know how to use it than the person who made it available is responsible....not the guns.
If I left my percoset out with the top off and my two year old thought they were candy and ate the whole bottle is the percoset to blame....it did its job....
-
doh my bad im getting tired and dont read that well when i am. Discipline, i guess could also be to blame. (runs for the hills)
or could also blame you, sometimes it isn't all your fault though. could be something as stupid as wind blows a blind which knows over the bottle and kid eats.
btw sorry for lose.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
doh my bad im getting tired and dont read that well when i am. Discipline, i guess could also be to blame. (runs for the hills)
or could also blame you, sometimes it isn't all your fault though. could be something as stupid as wind blows a blind which knows over the bottle and kid eats.
btw sorry for lose.
NO NO NO NO the percoset thing that was just an example I dont mean to be insensative but a parent leaves a weapon, weather it be a knife or a gun, easily accessable to a child or a teenager is asking for trouble.
The gun/knife does exactly what it's designed to do......
again guns dont kill people the people that use them or improperly use them do.
-
guns don't kill. that is what they were designed to do.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
guns don't kill. that is what they were designed to do.
Or shoot targets....or shoot clay pidgeons....
You allways have to have a PERSON pulling the trigger or "fiddleing" with it or leaving it to be "played" with by a child unatended
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sure if i'm on a rifle range this is not a problem but if I'm taking incoming fire and have to dive for cover or trudge through the mud the weapon gets dirty and becomes unreliable.
Besides cleaning and quality of ammo it is a fairly accurate weapon. With the proper training a marksman can hit a point target at 550 meters and an area target at 800 meters under Ideal weather conditions.
Hey Demaw-
I'll be sure to remember all this for next time I visit an American shopping mall. :aok Blaming a gun on a murder is like blaming a misspelled word on a pencil.
That misspelling would not have occurred if said illiterate subject had not had access to a pencil or other sharp writing implement.
-
Yet another reason to own guns (and know how to use them properly.)
This happened less than 10 miles from me, and abou 1 mile from my brother.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/03NewsHEAD01A080904.htm
Note that the vitcims were killed with baseball bats.
And I agree with what Gunslinger is saying. The only time people are "accidently" shot is when someone is not practicing safe firearms handling. Guns don't load or go off by themselves they need someone to do that for them. All gun accidents could be prevented with proper education and keeping them out of the hands of children.
In short, if you have a gun, know how to use it. Know all the safety rules and follow them. If you have kids, keep the guns locked up.
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
And I agree with what Gunslinger is saying. The only time people are "accidently" shot is when someone is not practicing safe firearms handling. Guns don't load or go off by themselves they need someone to do that for them. All gun accidents could be prevented with proper education and keeping them out of the hands of children.
YOu know people demonize the NRA for defending our 2nd amendment rights (who are they to defend rights of citizens;) )but what is never said is they do more for weapons safety than any other organization in the US. what evil monsters
-
agreed... when I was in school the NRA taught marksmanship classes and we all brought our 22's to high school. We were told not to load them (we allready knew better most of us) and the instructor would check our rifles for safe functioning. They bussed us to the range and we shot at paper and then came back to school.
I have been told that people are much better now... more civilized and that we don't need guns anymore... that if we got rid of guns then there would be no more bad guys and no more murders.
We had guns in school and no one shot anyone..
We had loaded guns in our closets and gun racks in allmost every home and kids were taught to have respect for guns. Now... kids are taught guns are evil and need to be hidden away. kids search em out now and play with em. It is forbidden so facinating and... they have no gun safety classes in school because it is evil to mention guns. The NRA is demonized so it's excellent and free gun safety classes are banned.
This is the world we live in and the types of laws and morality of the people who run it. So yeah....
it don't hurt to be prepared for anything.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Or shoot targets....or shoot clay pidgeons....
Which is called "practicing to kill people".
;)
-
nothing wrong with practicing to kill people or practicing to kill animals or practicing to defend yourself or practicing to make smaller groups to win tournements or learn how to make better ammo.
Killing people that don't need to be is wrong. robbing people is wrong. Using a gun to commit crimes is wrong.
using guns to defend yourself or others is right. owning and shooting guns is neither right nor wrong. Owning and carrying guns is a service to fellow citizens.
Anything I left out?
lazs
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Nevar? how bout when the brake fails?
The safety of the vehicle is the responsibility of the driver and/or owner. If the brakes fail, it is not the cars fault, it is the drivers fault for not keeping the car maintained.
Terror
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Beetle......overkill.......
Lots of overkill there beetle , and think of the cost of all that ammo, I am going broke just thinking about it.
Heres one for you he he.....You just step from your car at the mall. All the sudden 4 terrorist stationed here and there open up with ak's. You go to your trunk to get what?
1. tire iron.
2. m 16 with 3 clips.
3 bow and arrows
4. hide under car and call 911.
Dont say cant happen,that would be dumb even for a liberal....not saying you are.
You have terrorists stationed at your malls????
-
I heard it on TV... The guy says, if you can blame shooting deaths on guns, then you can blame typos on pencils.
(This is a great line).
Many things; guns, cars, knives, lawn mowers, insecticide sprayers, etc, can be dangerous in the wrong hands, or untrained hands.
Don't blame the gun, blame the idiots "fiddling" with one.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
Many things; guns, cars, knives, lawn mowers, insecticide sprayers, etc, can be dangerous in the wrong hands, or untrained hands.
Don't blame the gun, blame the idiots "fiddling" with one.
Many governments take the view that articles such as cars, knives, lawn mowers, insecticide sprayers, etc. can indeed be dangerous in the wrong hands, but also take the view that such devices have a legitimate primary use, and are likely to be used by people who are not part of any criminal fraternity. A gun, on the other hand, is designed to kill, and is one of the tools of the trade for the modern criminal.
Yes, a gun can be a very dangerous thing in the hands of an idiot, and clearly guns and idiots must be kept apart. We cannot legislate against idiots. So we do the next best thing. We legislate against guns.
-
Ok here we go again..never got an answer . Maybe one of you who want to ban guns will answer.
Right after hitler took control of germany, the very first thing he did was to remove all guns from the hands of citizens.
How much do you think the Jews and others, would have given, to have access to weapons as we did in the 1930s
After vietnam fell,1 of the first dominos to fall was cambodia.
How much do you think the 3 million cambodians, that were killed by the commies, would have given, to have access to weapons, as we did in the 70s.?
-
Demaw - this has all been covered in earlier gun threads c2002. Use the search button feature.
-
Demaw,
What you are saying doesn't matter to a Liberal. For Liberal's Gun Control is a 'feel good'. It doesn't matter that the majority of humans killed in the 20th Century came at the hands of their own Government. That the Jews could have defended themselves in Germany, or that the 100 million people murdered by the Communists in the last century may have had a chance. Nothing is as important as the 'Feel Good' and the Government (their government) making you feel it.
When you understand that, you understand a great deal about 'Gun Control' in the USA.
-
there is no possible way to have stop hitler and his forces. in the end it would have just cost more civilian lives.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
there is no possible way to have stop hitler and his forces. in the end it would have just cost more civilian lives than needed.
Exactly how many were 'needed'..?
-
:rolleyes: :o
doh wrong spelling.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
:rolleyes: :o
doh wrong spelling.
I understand, but I couldn't resist... sorry..
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
there is no possible way to have stop hitler and his forces. in the end it would have just cost more civilian lives.
So you think that if the Jews could have fought back with their own firearms that MORE than 6 MILLION Jewish civilians would have died? For some reason I don't think that would work out. Even if 1 Jew in 10 killed a German soldier, that would have reduced the German army by 600,000 soldiers. I think that would have put a pretty good damper on Hitler's genocidal tendencies....
Terror
-
I shot a gun at school 5 years ago. They taught us a hunter education course as part of Lousiana studies. My teacher spent 2 months going through everything we needed to get certified as a safe hunter, therefor being able to get a license.
EVERYONE had to take it... no options. They not only taught about hunting safety, but how to treat guns properly.
I grew up hunting with my father, and even though I really hated going out some days because of the cold, I learned a hell of a lot.. not just about guns, but about nature and the way things work in the world outside of work and school. Its an opportunity a lot of people dont have, and its a damned shame.
Guns teach us not to screw with things that can destroy us. They teach us the destructive power that one single person can have. But only a RESPONSIBLE PARENT/UNCLE/AUNT/GRANDPARENT/ can teach us how to use that power in ways that dont kill other people or ourselves, and they show us when and when not to use that power...
i.e. If someone makes fun of you at school, beat them up or pull their pants down, but dont bring a damn gun to school and kill them.
One single moment can change lives, especially around firearms. Every time before I pull the trigger on a rifle/pistol, I think of where Im shooting, whats behind it, what Im shooting at, and lastly, do I even need/want to shoot?
If more parents taught their kids to look before they leap, there wouldn't be any serious opposition to firearms... and yes, it is that simple.
-
Even if 1 Jew in 10 killed a German soldier, that would have reduced the German army by 600,000 soldiers.
In 1940 the German army defeated the combined strength of the British, Belgian, Dutch and French armies, taking over 1,500,000 prisoners, for the loss of 27,000 men.
And you expect civilians to achieve a 1 in 10 kill ratio?
Not in the modern world. Modern militaries have weapons that are too expensive for civilians to afford, require more training than civilians can afford, and require more support than civilians can organise.
Presumably Jewish civilians would have bought and equipped their own fighters, bombers, anti-tank guns, mortars, artillery, tanks etc, if only there hadn't been laws to prevent them?
-
WTG OTTO AND JASTA.
NASHWAN.....the persecution of jews started early 1930s not 1940.
There are many examples I could use, even modern ones, but I choose this one.
The war for American independence.
England circa 1700s
1. Largest and most powerfull navy in the world.
2. One of the richest countries in the world.
3. One of the largest merchant fleets in the world.
4. One of best equipt and trained armys in the world.
5. troops: 1,400,000 +/- under arms
6. cannon : 22,000
7. rifles,muskets : 1,800,000 +/-
8. powder and shot and accessories. : unlimited
9. tents : unlimited
10. shoes : unlimited
11. food ,water : unlimited
12. cold weather accessories : unlimited
13. ability to make war : unlimited.
America:
1. No navy to speak of.
2. merchant fleet : 45 various ships.
3. little money.
4. troops : 150,000 +/-
5.cannon : 5000 =/-
6.rifles and muskets : 200,000 +/-
7.powder ,shot and accessories : 4 month supply.
8.tents : limited
9.shoes : limited
10. Food,water : unlimited
11. cold weather accessories : limited
12. ability to make war. limited.
get the idea? nothing is impossible.
who ever does thank you.
-
beetle said.... "Many governments take the view that articles such as cars, knives, lawn mowers, insecticide sprayers, etc. can indeed be dangerous in the wrong hands, but also take the view that such devices have a legitimate primary use, and are likely to be used by people who are not part of any criminal fraternity. A gun, on the other hand, is designed to kill, and is one of the tools of the trade for the modern criminal.
Yes, a gun can be a very dangerous thing in the hands of an idiot, and clearly guns and idiots must be kept apart. We cannot legislate against idiots. So we do the next best thing. We legislate against guns."
notice he said "governments". The arguement seems to say that lawn mowers are necessary and that their value far outweighs their danger and that all freedoms should be allotted to us citizens under a "value" system.
even with this bizzare reasoning... In the U.S. 2.5 to 3 MILLION crimes a year are prevented by firearms.... states with right to carry laws enjoy reduction in all forms of violent crime..
from both a freedom and human rights standpoint and an economic one... guns are necessary and a good value for the danger level. Harsher penalties for gun crimes would increase their value even more.
And... the misspelled words analodgy is an interesting one... beetle takes the view that you simply need to ban pencils from idiots to prevent misspelled words. of course... tho... he believes that most people are idiots if you use his "no one should have guns because people are idiots" logic. Sooo... using beetles own logic... pencils should be outlawed or at least as restricted as firearms... only the elite should have em... pencil clubs.. like english gun clubs for "the right people".
this is standard socialist liberal and gun neurotic viewpoint. It never occurs to them to simply teach people to spell. Or... to handle firearms safely.
lazs
-
Beet1e,
Our constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. If Americans wish to legislate against guns, they must do so with an amendment.......
Regarding legislation against guns... this is soooooooo stupid as to be laughable. They are bringing tons of cocaine into this country, how hard to toss a few guns into the pile?
Reality - legislation prevents honest citizens from having their right to guns. It does nothing to prevent criminals.
I guess this lack of understanding is hard coded in some people...
Ben Franklin said, "He who would give up some FREEDOM for some security, deserves neither." It's brilliant......
-
I didn't even want to get into the "gun's are designed to kill" BS.
I was captain of HS and college shooting teams.....had nothing to do with killing anything.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
I didn't even want to get into the "gun's are designed to kill" BS.
I was captain of HS and college shooting teams.....had nothing to do with killing anything.
BS. Why do you think there are more than 10,000 gun homicides a year in the US in some years, but fewer than 20 in a country such as Japan?
You're welcome to your 2nd Amendment. I asked on this board who would like to see their country have the sort of guns free for all as can be had in the USA. Guys from 16 different countries said they would not.
-
Shooting at targets is no different than Golf, Basketball, Darts, I'm sure they're more. Those sports have nothing to do with homicides.
Why jump on TalonX? Shooting is a skill and a sport of gentlemen, whether it be target shooting or hunting.
Shooting skills of Americans, (where guns are a strong tradition), served our country well during WWII. You ever seen the movie about Sargeant York?
I guess it has a lot to do with how one feels about guns, depending on where the person grew up. Still don't see the logic in disarming ordinary citizens. I do not think they're idiots, and until proven otherwise, don't see the need to take away guns (like taking something harmful away from a child.)
Thank you for letting us keep our Second Amendment. To answer your question Beet1e, Japan is a more homogenious society with strong traditions of the Code of Bushido, the way of the warrior. Shame plays a large role in maintaining a civil society. Ostracizing is a thing to be feared. No one wants that.
With all the self esteem being taught in public schools here, everyone's equal, I'm OK, You're OK, it's no wonder there are problems. That, along with multiculturalism and the minimization of western culture, especially the contribution of Greek and Roman civilization.
Now I must check on Bonnie, who looks like she'll be paying a visit soon. Lots of rain and thunder here now.
Les
-
The concept of the 2nd amendment seems to be hard for some to understand.
This nation had just been through a situation where the government or those that represented it had trampled on their rights.
The quatering of troops does not seem to be much of a thing now but back then the people had to put up with soldiers quatered in their homes. Eating their food, lording it over them, and in some cases forcing their women into unwanted sex. So quatering troops in their homes became an issue.
It's much the same with several of the other amendments.
So few seem to fully understand the reasons behind those amendments.
Sadly I don't think their are many non-American's as well as a few American's that can see the point in the second amendment.
For these people it's the wild west and everyone running around with no selfcontrol shooting each other. I tend to find myself thinking about the projection theory. Where the thinker is incapable of looking at themsleves realistically and project what they would do into the other persons head and thus they blame the other person. Many of the gun control fanatics I have become aquainted with IMHO should stay away from firearms. In fact I would say that many of them were exactly the kind of people that should not be trusted with anything dangerous to themselves or others. Their almost epoliptic siezure's of rage when they talk spit flying from their screaming mouths all wild eyed. I remember thinking this person is on the edge and I better watch em close.
For me if someone I know is armed and in my home they are giving me a compliment. If I am armed and in their home I am giving them a compliment. In either case it is being said If someone comes into this house/home with evil intent all within will react accordingly. We will defend this house/home. Most American's I've known are very trust worthy when it comes to firearms. Sadly too many of the generations following mine do not have the slightest understanding of firearms safety. Sadly also the education system begain teaching firearm's safety either very poorly or not at all.
I have to say here that in almost every case the people I have known to be armed troubled me in NO way.
-
Some thoughts......
"Any attempt to replace a personal conscience by a collective conscience does violence to the individual and is the first step toward totalitarianism." --Herman Hesse
"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." --Socrates
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." --Edmund Burke
"Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong." --John G. Diefenbaker
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." --Theodore Roosevelt
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." --Barry Goldwater
"Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature." --Winston Churchill
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." --Groucho Marx
-
NASHWAN.....the persecution of jews started early 1930s not 1940.
The mass murder didn't.
More than half the Jews in Germany managed to flee between the Nazis coming to power and the start of the war.
An early agressive response by Jews to the changes in law that the Nazis were implementing would have brought the mass murder forward, allowing less to escape, and reduced the standing of Jews even futher in other countries.
There are many examples I could use, even modern ones, but I choose this one.
Choose a modern one.
In your example, the civilians were armed with superior weaponry to the soldiers in many cases, the British were weeks or months away from their home, and the US had extensive help from France. At Yorktown, there were as many French troops as British.
Choose a modern example of a civilian population overthrowing a foreign invader with domesticaly owned arms.
Every case I know of where civilians have successfully fought foreign invaders, it's been with military weapons supplied by a foreign power, not with the small arms they had hidden under the bed.
Waco showed what should be obvious to anyone, small arms are useless against a government who can send in tanks and aircraft.
Regarding legislation against guns... this is soooooooo stupid as to be laughable. They are bringing tons of cocaine into this country, how hard to toss a few guns into the pile?
Steet price of a kilo or 2 of cocaine? Street price of a handgun?
When guns cost too much, a crackhead is more likely to sell a gun he aquires than try to use it in a robbery, because he can get more money that way. Of course, the gun is a long term investment, but I've never heard that the sort of junkie that resorts to armed robbery thinks in the long term.
If guns are easily available, they're easily available to criminals.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/2.jpg)
(These are the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people)
Reality - legislation prevents honest citizens from having their right to guns. It does nothing to prevent criminals.
Look at statistics on how criminals in America got their guns. Something over 10% stole them from legal owners, most bought them from other criminals who had stolen them from legal owners, some bought them from gun shows, classified ads, or from a dealer.
Almost all the guns in criminal's hands in the US have come through the legal supply chain before being diverted into the criminal sector.
And... the misspelled words analodgy is an interesting one... beetle takes the view that you simply need to ban pencils from idiots to prevent misspelled words. of course... tho... he believes that most people are idiots if you use his "no one should have guns because people are idiots" logic. Sooo... using beetles own logic... pencils should be outlawed or at least as restricted as firearms... only the elite should have em... pencil clubs.. like english gun clubs for "the right people".
Spelling mistakes don't hurt as much as being shot, or so I've been told.
-
"Spelling mistakes don't hurt as much as being shot, or so I've been told."
The last thing a criminal wants is to get shot. For him, it's more than it hurting. It likely means getting caught.
If he has a gun here in Alabama and commits a crime with it, it's an automatic and mandatory five year sentence hard time in prison. This was recently enacted to help disuade criminals from using guns during crimes.
I agree criminals should not have guns, and fully support gun control for them.
Les
-
If you exclude Blacks and Hispanics from the statistics on violence and crime, the USA is no different than any European or Asian country. I would guess it's the same in South Africa.
-
Nashwan killing didnt start until 1940.....
The mass murder didnt, you are right, the mass round ups did.
More than half of the jews fled germany... By everything I have read it didnt come close to half made it out...
Again by 1936 what sane jew would care about other countries since they didnt care about them? An early agressive stance would most likely have stopped it all. The nazis early on were not that powerfull, thus almost every act was at night. Would not common sense suggest hiding in the night was because of weakness?
Under no circumstances were the American civilians better armed than the british soldiers. Daniel Boone even had a british rifle and a hand made American rifle.He would switch depending on what he was doing.
The Americans did NOT have extensive help from france.Yes there was some, and most of the french soldiers went home,as they didnt want to risk war with the british. Our debate is degree of help, not help.
I am sure you know that the british had no trouble with resupply,and that all of it didnt have to come from england.And a huge amount was on American soil already.
All countries recieve thier weapons from foriegn countries depending on geo politics at time. Except America.
That is why Japan could never have invaded california in 41.
All waco showed was that a hundred men, women, and children can not take on, an overwhelming force, in a undefenceable place, that had attack helos and tanks.Waco isnt logical example.
The only stats I would believe are the yearly FBI stats...sorry.
there are examples I can cite , not really important unless wanted.
Respectfully demaw.
-
beetle... your poll was bogus as it asked if everyone wanted a bigf pile of guns stacked up in the town mall so that ANYONE could pick one up and carry it around.
my poll asked a more realistic question of "do you think your countries gun control is to strict, not strict enough or just right.
In my poll allmost all the euros with oderous gun control said "too strict" and those with enlightened or very little control said "just right"
nash... now look at the gun homicides for whites in America. Look at the overall plus and minus for all violent crime bearing in mind that 2-3 MILLION violent crimes are prevented by firearms every year in the U.S. This is, after all about the U.S. but.... how is it that places like Norway with less restrictions on most firearms has very low gun crimes and Canada with as many guns per capita as the U.S. has so few? Why has violent crime and crime in general allmost doubled in entgland and austrralia since they passed their draconian gun bans?
Do what you want (or whatever your king/queen wants) in your country but having only the "elite" shoot at birds in hunting clubs while the muggers and rapists run amock is not what I call a good gun control plan.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... your poll was bogus as it asked if everyone wanted a bigf pile of guns stacked up in the town mall so that ANYONE could pick one up and carry it around.
My poll was not bogus, and asked nothing of the kind. If my poll was bogus, how come so many people took the time to respond, and how come you were the only one claiming it was bogus? The only thing that skewed the results was that I asked for responses from non-Americans only, but guys like you and Ripsnort just couldn't keep your noses out. Sure, you got different answers in your poll - because you asked an entirely different question, but you persist in claiming that you were asking the same question a different way. Which is, of course, bollocks.
I'm familiar with American history, and why guns were freely available in the 19th century and continue to be so now. And I have never said that law abiding Americans should be made to give them up.
More guns less crime? Just look at Iraq, or just look at Nashwan's chart. Target shooting sounds all very quaint and civilised, but like it or not, a large minority of the guns in circulation in the US have been acquired for crime and killing.
-
More than half of the jews fled germany... By everything I have read it didnt come close to half made it out...
I sugest you read again.
There were approx 550,000 Jews in Germany when the Nazis came to power.
Of those, approx 142,000 were eventually murdered. I've no doubt some survived, but most had already left.
Again by 1936 what sane jew would care about other countries since they didnt care about them?
Anti-semitism was rife in some countires, far less so in others.
According to the beliefs of anti semites, Jews were not loyal to the countries they lived in, they plotted in secret against those countries.
Do you think it would strengthen anti semitism if in the early 30s Jews had organised a secret uprising against a democraticaly elected German government, before that government had taken really oppressive action?
Nazi repression of the Jews was a gradual thing, and by the time it was clear how bad things were going to get, it was already too late.
An early agressive stance would most likely have stopped it all.
550,000 Jews can launch armed rebellion against the German government in the mid 30s and stopped the Nazi oppression? Don't be silly.
The Nazis were hugely popular in Germany in the 30s. If the Jews had precipitated action, the Nazis would be able to say "I told you so" and the Jews would have been wiped out much earlier.
If 550,000 Jews with guns are going to be so effective, what about the 80 million Germans with guns? Aren't they going to by 160 times more effective?
Or does a "good guy" with a gun automatically win against a "bad guy" with a gun? (and the inverted commas aren't meant to suggest Jews weren't good, and Nazis bad)
Under no circumstances were the American civilians better armed than the british soldiers.
Hunting weapons in the 18th century were typically superior to military weapons.
The Americans did NOT have extensive help from france.
They had help from the French fleet, they had supplies from France, they had French regular troops on their side.
The Americans did NOT have extensive help from france.Yes there was some, and most of the french soldiers went home,as they didnt want to risk war with the british. Our debate is degree of help, not help.
I am sure you know that the british had no trouble with resupply,and that all of it didnt have to come from england.And a huge amount was on American soil already.
BTW, why is america capitalised, and Britain, France and England not?
All countries recieve thier weapons from foriegn countries depending on geo politics at time. Except America.
No, most countries make their own weapons, to a certain extent.
What I mean is, it doesn't matter how many pistols and rifles you have hidden under the bed, you need proper military weapons like machine guns, mortars, artillery, missiles, etc to have an effect in a modern battle.
All waco showed was that a hundred men, women, and children can not take on, an overwhelming force, in a undefenceable place, that had attack helos and tanks.Waco isnt logical example.
Waco is the perfect example. It shows what happens when fools with guns think they can stand up to an army. They can't.
If you've got a gun, they bring a tank, and as the Iraqis have proved, you need good modern, very expensive, anti-tank weapons to take out a modern tank.
If by some miracle you manage to get a suitable anti-tank weapon, they bring aircraft, or artillery. They will outgun you.
Unless you have foreign backers who will supply you with the latest military weaponry, you will lose.
The only stats I would believe are the yearly FBI stats...sorry.
Those are the yearly FBI stats.
beetle... your poll was bogus as it asked if everyone wanted a bigf pile of guns stacked up in the town mall so that ANYONE could pick one up and carry it around.
my poll asked a more realistic question of "do you think your countries gun control is to strict, not strict enough or just right.
Why not ask a question like:
Would you prefer your countriy's gun laws or America's gun laws?
You could even throw in a third option, Lazs ' gun laws.
nash... now look at the gun homicides for whites in America.
I have. According to the FBI, around half the murders in the US are comitted by whites. (actually around a third by whites, a third black, a third unkown, but that's roughly half of know murders, and probably a similar percentage of the unkowns as well)
Note that to match the rate for everyone in England and Wales last year ie including the urban poor, you would have to have to have less than 400 people shot by white Americans.
how is it that places like Norway with less restrictions on most firearms has very low gun crimes and Canada with as many guns per capita as the U.S. has so few?
Fewer handguns, which are the weapon of choice for the criminal, because they are easy to conceal,
Why has violent crime and crime in general allmost doubled in entgland and austrralia since they passed their draconian gun bans?
I can't speak for Australia, but it hasn't in Britain.
The way the police recorded minor crime in Britain has changed, so for example someone pushing someone else was rarely recorded before, now goes down as a "violent crime".
Years ago, a "violent crime" that resulted in no injury usually didn't get recorded. Now over 40% of police recorded "violent crime" involves no injury, not even a bruise, graze, scrape or black eye, which are all recorded now under "woundings".
For over a decade, they've been collecting an alternative set of crime figures, called the "British Crime Survey". 40,000 people are questioned on their experience of crime in a year, at random. It gives a good picture of what crimes are actually happening, and catches many minor crimes the police do not record, or which are not reported to police.
The BCS shows violent crime has declined by 35% since 1995.
Do what you want (or whatever your king/queen wants) in your country but having only the "elite" shoot at birds in hunting clubs while the muggers and rapists run amock is not what I call a good gun control plan.
Rape is one of the few crimes that is higher in America than Britain. Perhaps it's harder to get away from a rapist with a gun than an unarmed one?
-
beetle... you asked if people would want unrestricted gun ownership... something that does not exist anywhere in the world. you offered no other choices so.... basicly.. you offered an extreme or nothing.
nash.. my poll was much simpler and infinetley more fair and meanigful. it offered realistic choices.... more, less or the same for gun control...
Also... 1/3 of gun homicides are by whites. your "1/3" by others iclaim to be ewqually divided between whites and minorities is silly since most unsolved murders are in predominently minority neighborhoods and are related to drug and gang crime.
as for hundguns... most of the crimes that are stopped with firearms are prevented with handguns... no matter how you look at it.... handguns are a net asset in the U.S.
The way that britan reports crime has been chjanged but it is still not as strict as the way the U.S. does. england has a very poor rate of conviction when compared to the U.S. I believe they only report homiciides that are solved .
Norway allows silenced carbines and so called assault weapons. Are you saying that if we allowed these things and norways restrictions on handguns we would have less homicides? That seems to contradict current democratic gun control ideas in the U.S. that demonize silencers and semi automatic firearms.
If we got rid of handguns then there would be no more concealled carry and crime would go up in those states.
Criminals in the U.S. are not going around shooting citizens with handguns. They are killing each other over drugs and criminals are being stopped by law abiding citizens who are using handguns and longarms to prevent crime.
lazs
-
I believe they only report homiciides that are solved .
No, the homicide figures in Britain count 1 homicide for every person the police suspect was the victim of murder or manslaughter.
They even count manslaughter by negligence, which the US figures exclude.
Criminals in the U.S. are not going around shooting citizens with handguns.
Frequently they are. They are being shot during roberies, or during arguments, in pretty large numbers.
In 2002, the last year the figures are available, something over 1200 people were murdered during robberies, burgularies or other thefts.
Over 4,000 were killed during arguments.
They are killing each other over drugs
Again according to the FBI, about 660 were murdered in connection with narcotics, around 900 in gang violence.
and criminals are being stopped by law abiding citizens who are using handguns and longarms to prevent crime.
And people are getting killed by criminals when they attempt to stop them. Gunfights are inherently dangerous.
It's not like Hollywood where the good guys win, you know. Chances are, a criminal has the initative, is less likely to worry about shooting first, and is usually younger and fitter than the armed citizen they may encounter.
-
killed during arguements? My guess is that about 90% of those arguements were drug or gang or crime related. The reamining ten per cent or so is most likely spousal abuse cases where the woman is defending herself.
1200 murdered during robberies? about 80% of those were the robbers themselves... without armed citizens that is likely to be reversed. A burglar killed is considered a "homicide during a robbery". In armed confrontations the burglar is about 5 times more likely to lose than the homeowner.
say what you like about our supervillans who are able to win the gunfight but the stats show that, depending on if you are a man or a woman or your race, you are from 1.4 to 4 times more likely to survive a violent encounter with a criminal if you are armed than if you are not.
soo... of the around 8,000 deaths by firearms in a year there are only about 2500 that are caused by whites and of those probly 60% or more are justified which leaves around a thousand of which mostr would have simply been murdered in other ways if there were no guns at all (just like in other countries)
those few murders are a pitance compared to the potential harm caused by loseing the 2-3 million dettered by handgun crimes that occuir every year in the U.S.
People who advocate strong gun control are either dishonest about their motive or ignorant or.... both.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... you asked if people would want unrestricted gun ownership...
Not quite. My original question was "Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?"
-
killed during arguements? My guess is that about 90% of those arguements were drug or gang or crime related.
No, they have seperate categories for drug and gang related murders.
660 nracotics related murders, 990 gang related murders.
1200 murdered during robberies? about 80% of those were the robbers themselves... without armed citizens that is likely to be reversed. A burglar killed is considered a "homicide during a robbery".
No, those are counted as justifiable homicide, and not included in the figures.
From the UCR handbook:
1a.-8 Justifiable homicide. A police officer answers a bank holdup alarm and suprises the robber coming out of the bank. After firing at the officer, the robber is shot and killed. The officer is charged in a court of record as a matter of routine in such cases. (One offence of murder, unfounded, and one offence of robbery, cleared by exceptional means)
1a.-9 Justifiable homicide. When a gunman entered a store and attempted to rob the propietor, the felon was shot and killed by the storekeeper. (One offence of murder, unfounded, and one offence of robbery, cleared by exceptional means)
No actual offences will be counted or recorded for justifiable homicides.
That's straight from the UCR handbook on how to report crimes to the FBI for the records.
In armed confrontations the burglar is about 5 times more likely to lose than the homeowner.
Can I have a source for that?
The US department of justice keep records on the number of justifiable homicides by police, and the FBI keep records on the number of police officers murdered on duty.
On average, the score is 5 to 1, ie the police shoot dead 5 criminals for every policeman murdered (excluding 9/11).
Over half the police officers murdered were wearing body armour.
If the police, who are well trained, frequently in body armour, and usually have the initiative when confronting criminals, only manage 5 to 1, I can't see it likely that citizens, who have much less training, almost never have body armour, and who rarely have the initiative, will do as well.
I think somebody has given you the police figures, rather than homeowner figures.
soo... of the around 8,000 deaths by firearms
It's not 8,000, it's over 10,000.
The FBI records that of the 14,054 murders where they had full information, 9,369 were committed with firearms.
However, there were another 2,200 or so murders where the FBI didn't have full information on weapons, circumstances etc. Note these are not "unkown causes" of death, these are cases where the local police simply didn't give extended information on race, weapons, circumstances etc.
Considering the figure is well over half of murders where the FBI have information are with firearms, I should think the same proportion would apply to the cases where the FBI do not have full information.
That means around 10,500 murders with firearms.
there are only about 2500 that are caused by whites
No, the FBI report around 5,500 murders by whites. On top of that, as I said, around 1/3 of murders the FBI don't know the suspect's race, but that doesn't mean the local police don't. The 5,500 figure is where the race is known, you have to add a proportion of 5,000 or so unknowns to that.
Contrary to your belief that all unkown murder suspects are black, it's rural forces that are less likely to give full info to the FBI, not the big inner city police forces, and in rural areas the offenders are more likely to be white.
Approx half the murders in the US are carried out by whites.
and of those probly 60% or more are justified
No, justifieds aren't counted at all.
would have simply been murdered in other ways if there were no guns at all (just like in other countries)
But they aren't murdered at anything like the same rate in other developed countries.
People who advocate strong gun control are either dishonest about their motive or ignorant or.... both.
Or are using the correct statistics rather than one's they've made up?
-
Nashwan
cant reply tonight have to get up early, will by saturday.
btw.....he he he you noticed only person who has. not bad.
-
ok nash.. I will ask you the same... where do you get the stats you use? your totals do not equal what you say are the number of homicides with firearms in the U.S..
!/3 of the total homicides by whites does not equal 5500 as you say later... and.. if 1/3 of the known homicides are by whites then why would half of the unknown be by whites? wouldn't it be at most, 1/3 also?
The figures for men and women defending themselves with firearms are ones collected by jophn lott from FBI and police data and show that you are much more likely to survive an attack if you are armed.
police are not supermen and they frequently go up against armed criminals such as holdup men and gang members. They also can't go into a situation like a routine traffic stop with drawn guns and all the caution they would like.
contrast this with the homeowner on his own ground, gun at the ready, confronting a criminal who is very seldom armed with a firearm due to increased penalties for their use in a crime. He has a much better chance at prevailing than a cop at a traffic stop..
gangf related is not just the gang members that are over 17 that can be proven to be in a gang related crime at the time. What are all these (over 2/3 of the homicides or say 9000 minority ones) What are they killing each other over? "arguements"? I would need to see "arguements " defined a little better. For instance.. A very common homicide is a woman shooting an abusive husband who beats her. I see no figures for this so assume it is under "arguement".
Drive by shootings kill more innocent people than the intended gangmembers... this is still gang related but not reported as such.
either way... with the FBI addmitting that 1.5 to 3 million crimes prevented with firearms in the U.S. then killing a few thousand a year, most of who need killing, is a pitance. How many of that 3 million are saved?
lazs
-
And... nash, have you read any of John Lotts work? There is no better researched works available. Even those who opposse him admit that much.
That is one of the reasons that I say those oppossed to guns are dishonest or ignorant or both.
dishonest because the raw data... FBI and lotts collection of state federal and county data all point to guns saving lives and preventing crime. If the person argues knowing the facts then he is dishonest... If not... ignorant.
If he simply is friegtened of guns so ignores the data in the false hope that taking guns away from his fellow citizens will make it less likely that he will ever see one or be a victim of a crime then he is both ignorant and dishonest.
I believe most anti gun people are dishonest about their motives. They care not about the economics of the issue (save more or less than they kill) but have a personal fear of firearms that they are unwilling to openly admit so hide behind "for our own good" laws.
oh... and beetle... "all but unrestricted" is pretty extreme and would be viewed that way by most people... you offered your fellow subjects and socialists very little choice... nothing lesser than a 180.
I think everyone can see that my poll was infinetly more fair and representitive.
lazs
-
And... nash, have you read any of John Lotts work? There is no better researched works available. Even those who opposse him admit that much.
The last I heard, Lott had resorted to claiming he'd lost all his original data in a computer crash, when he was challenged over it's validity. He also can't provide any backup evidence that one of his key surveys was carried out, ie no records of the results, who wa surveyed, no bills to any survey organisations, no people who carried out the survey for him, etc.
See for example:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
dishonest because the raw data... FBI and lotts collection of state federal and county data all point to guns saving lives and preventing crime. If the person argues knowing the facts then he is dishonest... If not... ignorant.
Lazs, you have less crime in MAerica than Britain. You have a much much higher murder rate.
You have less muggings, but far more people are killed during muggings.
These are facts.
I believe most anti gun people are dishonest about their motives. They care not about the economics of the issue (save more or less than they kill) but have a personal fear of firearms that they are unwilling to openly admit so hide behind "for our own good" laws.
I like guns. When I was a child, my father ran a gun club, and we spent many hours restoring an antique rifle (Martini Henry action, from what I remember.) I've owned airguns since I was a young child, and would probably have got a handgun liicence by now if the government hadn't totally banned them following Dunblane.
I like guns. I'm interested in guns. About the only things I ever know in Brady's "what is it" posts are guns.
I know too many people in the area that I live that I wouldn't trust with a gun.
If I lived in a country with lax gun laws, I would get handgun, both because I like them and for protection, because I might meet a criminal armed with one.
But I'm happier living in country where criminals find it hard to get guns, and I recognise if it's easy for me to get a gun, it's easy for criminals as well.
ok nash.. I will ask you the same... where do you get the stats you use? your totals do not equal what you say are the number of homicides with firearms in the U.S..
From the FBI report "Crime in the United States"
http://www.fbi.gov./ucr/ucr.htm#cius
!/3 of the total homicides by whites does not equal 5500 as you say later... and.. if 1/3 of the known homicides are by whites then why would half of the unknown be by whites? wouldn't it be at most, 1/3 also?
No, the FBI gives the following figures for 2002 (2003 not available yet)
Murders: 16,204
http://www.fbi.gov./ucr/02cius.htm Section II Crime Index pdf
Race: White 5356 Black 5579 Unknown
4604
Table 2.6 - Offenders by Age, Sex and Race, 2002
There are approx the same number of white murders as black. IF you take the "unkown figure, and divide it into the same proportion, you will get about 2150 extra whites, 2350 extra blacks.
The figures for men and women defending themselves with firearms are ones collected by jophn lott from FBI and police data and show that you are much more likely to survive an attack if you are armed.
How do you define an attack?
If someone is trying to kill you, of course you stand more chance of survival if you're armed.
In the vast majority of crimes, someone is not trying to kill you.
In the vast majority of crimes, someone is trying to steal from you. If you then get into a gunfight over your wallet, you stand more chance of dying than if you didn't get into a gunfight over your wallet.
The fact that a criminal is more likely to encounter an armed citizen means a criminal is more likely to shoot first in America.
If someone steals my wallet in the UK and runs, he knows if he can run faster than me, which he almost certainly can, then he's safe. He's got no reason to kill me.
In the US, he has to worry whether I will shoot him as he runs.
If someone is trying to kill you, you are safer with a gun. If someone is trying to rob you, you probably aren't.
The last time I got into an argument like this, I looked at the Nashville police site to try to find an example to illustrate my case. One happened a day or so before.
2 armed criminals went into a shop to try to rob the owner. He saw them coming, and ran into the back of the shop, shouting for help. The robbers flled. The shop owner grabbed a gun and chased after them, caught them in the street, and they shot him dead.
It was the second time he'd done a imilar thing, the first time, years earlier, he'd got probabtion (iirc) for shooting dead a fleeing robber.
If someone comes to rob me, I think I'm safer if I don't have a gun, I know I'm safer if he doesn't have a gun.
police are not supermen and they frequently go up against armed criminals such as holdup men and gang members. They also can't go into a situation like a routine traffic stop with drawn guns and all the caution they would like.
I know they can't, but the police are seldom the victims of the crime. They usually know at least something is happening.
Can a citizen go into a mugging with gun drawn? Do you draw a gun on everyone you think looks a bit funny?
Truth is, the criminal initiates the crime. Until that point, he's the only one who knows what's about to happen. The criminal outside the shop door knows that within seconds he's going to be point a gun at the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is merely waiting for his next customer, with no idea what's happening next.
contrast this with the homeowner on his own ground, gun at the ready, confronting a criminal who is very seldom armed with a firearm due to increased penalties for their use in a crime. He has a much better chance at prevailing than a cop at a traffic stop..
There are certainly circumstances where the homeowner has the advantage, but you forgot to add that the homeowner is often sleepy, confused, worried the noise might actually be one of his children, etc.
He also doesn't have body armour, and probably a lot less training than the police officer.
gangf related is not just the gang members that are over 17 that can be proven to be in a gang related crime at the time.
It says nothing about over 17. And it's not proven, the determination for the UCR is what the police officer thinks. the officer has to judge what the crime is, or wether there's a crime, based on his knowledge of the events.
That means if a 15 year old wearing a bandana is killed in a drive by, it goes down as gang related.
What are they killing each other over? "arguements"? I would need to see "arguements " defined a little better. For instance.. A very common homicide is a woman shooting an abusive husband who beats her. I see no figures for this so assume it is under "arguement".
If she shoots him whilst being attacked, it's self defence. If she executes him in revenge for an attack, it's probably argument or revenge.
Unfourtunately they don't break down relationships by weapon type, but they do breakdown total murders by relationship.
Of the known totals, 133 were husbands killed by wives, 601 were wives killed by husbands, 154 boyfriends killed by girlfriends, 444 girlfriends killed by boyfriends.
A very common homicide is a woman shooting an abusive husband who beats her.
If we assume the man was at fault in every one of those killings, it's a total of less than 300 cases out of 16,000 murders in the US.
Drive by shootings kill more innocent people than the intended gangmembers... this is still gang related but not reported as such.
How do you know it's not reported as gang related? But I'll let it go, as it just proves the point how innocent people get hurt when gang members have easy access to guns.
hen killing a few thousand a year, most of who need killing,
It's 16,000 a year, excluding justifiable homicides.
You might be able to con yourself that everyone who is getting shot deserves it, but it's not really true.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
BS. Why do you think there are more than 10,000 gun homicides a year in the US in some years, but fewer than 20 in a country such as Japan?
You're welcome to your 2nd Amendment. I asked on this board who would like to see their country have the sort of guns free for all as can be had in the USA. Guys from 16 different countries said they would not.
You are not an American, are you?
I think this strikes at the core differences..... as Ben Franklin said.....you want security and are willing to give up freedom.
I am not.
-
Hmm... last I heard Lott had refuted every charge save one on his reams of data.
your figures don't add up. you claim anywhere from 12000 to 16000 homicides a year in the U.S. Then you give a figure of 9,369 identifiable homicides by firearms and then...
you give the figures of 1200 during robberies, 4000 during arguements, 660 drug related and 900 gang related for a total of 6769 you also claim that over 5000 are commited by minorities.
you are all over the map. which of your figures are we to believe?
I read about 8-9 thousand a year depending on year with 1/3 committed by whites that is not that many per capita... about like canada.
I am sorry that you can't trust your neighbors with guns... sounds pretty silly to me. They drive and use tools tho right? you have to interact with em right?
I trust my neigbors with guns at least as much as I trust em to drive or do drugs.
lazs
-
Nash wan.....keeping a promise.
Ok where to start:
Lindgren is as leftist as any professor of higher learning,until you get to the likes of angila davis. It is common knowledge amoung most gun owners that Lott has been able to refute everything Lingren said....Once more I was lucky enough to here a debate on a radio program between them.It was sweet,ah for my side that is.
I am assuming you are an American,therefore have an interest in const/ b.o. rights. The first admendment, first line says freedom of religion. then of course press and speach etc. The 2nd admendment amoung other things ,the right of the people, to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon.
This is the 2nd admendment that says this ,not the 4 or 8 or 188 etc.So it was important to the founding fathers of America to include this.Seems you all can pass laws at least until we get fedup with it to hinder ownership of guns.
Congress shall pass no law...what part of this dont you understand?. And are you personally willing to accept the results of you all trying?
If this continues ,than I guess Ill have to answer your post to me in more detail.
thanks
-
Ok... looked it up... the "article" that puts one very tiny bit of info.. a survey really.. into question on Lotts entire thousands of points of data is the same one discussed in an earlier thread here that pretty much came to the wise conclusion that if in all the many thousands of points of data that are heavily footnoted in Lotts work.... the only thing that can be faulted is a survey that has little or no bearing on his work.... if all the anti gun, fruitcakes with all their money can't do any better than that..... the case for arming America is extremely strong.
So far.... no other actual data has been refuted by the entire pantywaist anti gun crowd.
I don't believe you like firearms at all... It would appear that you don't even like people by your statement that you don't trust even neighbors with guns. Plus...................
you didn't look at the FBI data very well... TOTAL murders in the U.S in 2002 were 14,054 "total murder victims from table 2.13
of that..... 66.7 were committed with all types of firearms (table 2.9) for a total of..... 9,374 (just as I said)
not 16,000 nor 12000..... 9,374
of that... about 3000 of the firearms murderers were white 3100 black and the rest minority and unknown. This from table 2.8 keeping in mind that the table shows a total of all homicides so must be reduced to 66.7% as per table 2.9
now.... table 2.8 shows that about 13% of all whites murdered are by blacks and 1% other and 1% unknown
it also shows that only about 6% of blacks were murdered by whites. Certainly... Whites have more to fear from blacks with guns than vice versa... more than twice as much in fact..
table 2.13 also shows "circumstances" the "arguements" that you speak of is 3527 total homicides of which only 2330 (66.7% from table 2.9) not 4000 people shooting each other over the cat crapping on the neighbors lawn..
in any case... the biggest portion of the homicides are committed during felonies. A good reason to be armed.
The fact remains that for a total of maybe 2500 whites killing people with firearms it seems ludicrous to throw out the millions of times that crimes were prevented because of firearms especially since there is no data that would suggest that even a portion of the deaths would not have occured if firearms did not exist even (the criminals would use other means).
you yourself admit that england has extremely high crime rates since their disarming of their subjects.
lazs
-
I was convinced some time ago by Lazs and others arguments that gun control does not in fact work. As in it only controls the guns of law abiding citizens. Fair enough. Guns are not the problem. But nevertheless the United States has a gun crime problem which is disproportionate to comparable western countries. If guns are not the problem then what is?
Interestingly the only part of Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' that I actually saw was the part where he was comparing Detroit with it's Canadian neighbour across the river. The Canadian city was virtually crime free and the only murder a local cop could remember was perpretrated by someone over from Detroit. Moore pointed out that Canadians owned almost as many guns as Americans, and there were as many minorities there as in America. Yet people left their front doors unlocked as Moore showed by scaring one or two people by opening their front door.
I know it may seem odd to use Michael Moore to support less gun control but there you are. His conclusion was that it was the fault of the sensationalist media reporting in the States which scared people into thinking that they needed guns for protection compared to the rather more dull and worthy news items on Canadian TV.
it also shows that only about 6% of blacks were murdered by whites. Certainly... Whites have more to fear from blacks with guns than vice versa... more than twice as much in fact..
That comment from Lazs is illuminating. Leaving aside the Black/White issue which has connotations of racism. I think it's as much to do with issues of class for the sake of a better word. I would venture to suggest that poor whites are in fact as likely as poor blacks to be involved in gun crime. I doubt if middle class blacks shoot many people.
So the issue is not so much about guns but the relatively large underclass of underprivileged, uneducated people, often from minorities who exist around the edges of society in the United States.
Guns don't kill people, bad housing, poor education and poverty kills people. Maybe the NRA could seek to help improve society as a whole. Even here in Ireland with strong gun control we a small gun crime problem. The same type of people are involved. The underclass, the badly educated and ignorant. It has to be the same everywhere.
Guns are a red herring in my opinion. Shouldn't the debate be about what kind of society exists in the United States such that law abiding citizens feel they need personal weapons for protection?
-
Cpxxx....comparing apples to oranges
The problem is multi demensional.Remember,there are always exceptions to the rule.
The problem is;
1.The society has changed from a ten commandment ,personal responsabilty, and common sense society, to a narcissistic, feel good [feelings] I am a victim society. And DRUGS.
2 I do not think there are any comparable western countries. Maybe in a way the balkins.
3 I dont know the name of the city in Canada so I could be wrong. Never the less its minorites are not comparable to detroit.I know there has been a lot of tension between Quebec and British Columbia and thier societies are similiar.Their are many,many cities in America virtually crime free.
Canada may or may not have as many guns as America,I have thought they were much stricter. Maybe some one can help on that. Moore is wrong on everything including this about the media.
Lazs comment had connotations of racism, how so ? If there is a truth, in Ireland ,and you say it, is the person who says it, labaled as a [anything]?
No, according to the fbi ,poor whites are not as likely to be involved in gun crimes as poor blacks. Yet, well off whites, are more likely to be serial killers.
No, you forget ,many of the so called uneducated, under privileged people in the US, are better off than most of the outside worlds middleclass.Existing around the edges of society is a European thing ,not American.
Bad housing, poor education,and poverty kills people? Wow what an elitist point of view,yep you are from across the pond.
If that is true,explain to me the fact that the great majority of the uneducated and poor people in America cause no problems? The uneducated and poor helped build America. I grew up in an area that was lower middle class,we were poor, and guess what, since we didnt have everybody, and their uncle telling us, we didnt know we were poor.
Law abiding citizens have always had the need for weapons to protect themselves. Those that didnt have them some where along the line ended up in a Russia,Germany,France[at time of revolution] Sudan, well you get the point.
Yes , What I said in 1st paragraph is the problem.
-
"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil"
-
That comment from Lazs is illuminating. Leaving aside the Black/White issue which has connotations of racism. I think it's as much to do with issues of class for the sake of a better word. I would venture to suggest that poor whites are in fact as likely as poor blacks to be involved in gun crime. I doubt if middle class blacks shoot many people.
Exactly. It's something Lazs doesn't seem to want to accept, but the poor, particularly the urban poor, committ far more crimes than other groups, whatever race they are.
When Lazs talks about rmoving blacks from the statistics, and comparing what's left to figures for other countries, what he is in effect saying is that removing the "criminal class" from America, the remaining population is no more likely to committ murder than any other country, if you include the other countriy's criminal class.
ie remove most of the high crime group from America, and the remaining, far more middle class group, will commmitt the same number of murders as another country's average.
Even that's not tru, of course, FBI figures show the US white population has a murder rate double the UK's average.
I should think if someone had been trying to manipulate the US figures 150 years ago, they would try to remove the Irish, as they were the previous group that occupied the lowest social class. (No offence meant, it's the fate of all large scale immigration, I should think.)
Guns don't kill people, bad housing, poor education and poverty kills people. Maybe the NRA could seek to help improve society as a whole. Even here in Ireland with strong gun control we a small gun crime problem. The same type of people are involved. The underclass, the badly educated and ignorant. It has to be the same everywhere.
Yes. The figures in Britain show London has 15% of the England and Wales population, nearly 50% of the gun crime. And I doubt many of the rich City types are involved, which must push the proportion of the underclass involved up even more.
Guns are a red herring in my opinion.
I don't think they're a red herring. They are the cause, either.
Guns are a tool. They're a very effective tool for killing people. If you let criminals carry guns, a lot more people will get killed.
The statistic I keep coming back to is robbery. You are more likely to be robbed in Britain, you are far more likely to be killed during a robbery in America.
About 75% of people killed during a robbery are killed with guns.
Guns make it easier to kill, they make it much more likely you will kill in a panic, or inadvertently.
I was convinced some time ago by Lazs and others arguments that gun control does not in fact work. As in it only controls the guns of law abiding citizens.
Does it though? If I wanted a handgun to committ a crime, I wouldn't know where to start, and I'd probably end up getting robbed by some shady character in a pub when I approached him about buying one.
Would you know where to buy a handgun if you wanted one?
I don't believe you like firearms at all... It would appear that you don't even like people by your statement that you don't trust even neighbors with guns.
I didn't say my neighbours. There's nobody on my street I would worry about being armed, but then it's a fairly small street.
I know a man who sniffs petrol and hangs upsidedown from a bus stop, shouting abuse at people. I'd rather he wasn't armed. My car was broken into a couple of times a year or two ago, I'm glad when I ran outside I didn't have to worry if the scum had guns.
you didn't look at the FBI data very well... TOTAL murders in the U.S in 2002 were 14,054 "total murder victims from table 2.13
No, the FBI don't include all murders in this "total". It doesn't include certain jurisdictions, Some police forces that didn't supply any data to the FBI on time get assigned an estimated number. (And please don't say the true rate is then 14,000, because that will only be true of the known figures, and I think the FBI have a fairly good idea of what will be happening in the small number of areas that haven't reported that year)
Download http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf
Go to page 19
An estimated 16,204 murders took place in 2002.
of that..... 66.7 were committed with all types of firearms (table 2.9) for a total of..... 9,374 (just as I said)
Only if you ignore the true figure of 16,204 that the FBi say were murdered in 2002.
If you assume 66.7%, ie assume the same proportion of the murders not in that table were committed with firearms, you get 66.7% of 16,204, or 10,808
of that... about 3000 of the firearms murderers were white 3100 black and the rest minority and unknown. This from table 2.8 keeping in mind that the table shows a total of all homicides so must be reduced to 66.7% as per table 2.9
Lazs, I was responding to your quote:
!/3 of the total homicides by whites does not equal 5500 as you say later... and.. if 1/3 of the known homicides are by whites then why would half of the unknown be by whites? wouldn't it be at most, 1/3 also?
Total homicides, not firearms homicides
now.... table 2.8 shows that about 13% of all whites murdered are by blacks and 1% other and 1% unknown
it also shows that only about 6% of blacks were murdered by whites. Certainly... Whites have more to fear from blacks with guns than vice versa... more than twice as much in fact..
Lazs, I'm not interested in getting into a race debate with you.
table 2.13 also shows "circumstances" the "arguements" that you speak of is 3527 total homicides of which only 2330 (66.7% from table 2.9) not 4000 people shooting each other over the cat crapping on the neighbors lawn..
Lazs, a third of the people killed with firearms are killed in unkown circumstances. And that's just of 14,000 odd murders, not the true 16,204 total.
You are consistently ignoring unkowns and assuming they don't exist, like when you claim if someone is positively identified as white, he's white, but if his race isn't known, or isn't given, he isn't white.
in any case... the biggest portion of the homicides are committed during felonies. A good reason to be armed.
An even better reason to try to stop felons getting guns.
You have more chance of dieing in a gunfight than in a fistfight or robbery.
The fact remains that for a total of maybe 2500 whites killing people with firearms
2500? WTF did you get that number from.
According to the FBI:
Total murders 16,204
Whites 5356
Blacks 5579
Others 274
Known race murders = 11,204
Percent of know race murders who were white = 47.78%
Multiplying all murders 16,204 by known percentage of white murders 47.78% =
White murders = 5353
Percent of muders committed with firearms = 66.7%
Number of whites committing murder with firearm = 3570
you yourself admit that england has extremely high crime rates since their disarming of their subjects.
We've had rather high crime rates since the "liberal consensus" of the 60s sought to "understand" criminals and "rehabilitate" them rather than punish them, since it became all but impossible to punish children, even when they comiited crimes.
We've managed to keep out murder rate far below yours, though, by keeping the tools out of criminals hands
your figures don't add up. you claim anywhere from 12000 to 16000 homicides a year in the U.S. Then you give a figure of 9,369 identifiable homicides by firearms and then...
Where did I claim 16,000 murders in the US?
you are all over the map. which of your figures are we to believe?
All of them. They are accurate, and taken from the FBI figures.
I read about 8-9 thousand a year depending on year with 1/3 committed by whites that is not that many per capita... about like canada.
The figures are in the FBI statistics. All you have to do is look at the total figures, not just the subset the FBI has data for.
I am sorry that you can't trust your neighbors with guns... sounds pretty silly to me. They drive and use tools tho right?
The guy who hangs from the busstop has probably regressed past the tool using stage, and the ones I don't trust wouldn't use tools. Tools imply work, something they're rather keen to avoid.
Most tools are designed for a job other than killing people. Someone using an electric drill 50 yards away is not a danger to me, some idiot using a gun 50 yards away is.
you have to interact with em right?
YEs, although I try not to interact with some of them. the car thieves, junkies, etc.
I trust my neigbors with guns at least as much as I trust em to drive or do drugs.
If my neighbour is taking drugs, he's little danger to me. Unless he has a gun at the same time, that is.
It's not just their competence I trust, some are criminals who would use guns in crime. I've little doubt that handguns where I live would mean the odd drive by shooting, and a fairly vicious little gang war, which as you noted can lead to innocent bystanders getting killed.
-
I am assuming you are an American,therefore have an interest in const/ b.o. rights.
No I'm British.
You can relax, though, I'm not trying to take your guns off you. I can honestly say I've never written to a congressman, gun advocate, or indeed anyone, trying to get guns laws tightened, in the US or Britain.
he first admendment, first line says freedom of religion. then of course press and speach etc. The 2nd admendment amoung other things ,the right of the people, to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon.
This is the 2nd admendment that says this ,not the 4 or 8 or 188 etc.So it was important to the founding fathers of America to include this.Seems you all can pass laws at least until we get fedup with it to hinder ownership of guns.
I discuss guns, and what effect they have on crime, with people in an online forum. That's it. I'm not really interested in the US constitution, or what would need to be changed in the US to tighten the gun laws.
Congress shall pass no law...what part of this dont you understand?. And are you personally willing to accept the results of you all trying?
I'm not trying. I'm just discussing what I think the effects are on crime, and whether allowing such easy access to guns is wise or not.
I'd be too idle/apathetic to campaign against easy access to guns if I lived in the US, but I would buy a handgun or two, both for the fun of shooting and for self defence.
As I've said before, I liked Britain's gun laws up until the mid 80s, before the Hungerford massacre, when they banned semi auto rifles, and before they banned handguns after Dunblane.
The system used to be that if you wanted a gun, you could apply for a licence, which would be granted if you weren't a nutter or criminal, and had somewhere secure to store it, and the guns would be tracked, ie you could not sell them on unless it was to another licenced user/dealer.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Cpxxx....comparing apples to oranges
The problem is multi demensional.Remember,there are always exceptions to the rule.
The problem is;
1.The society has changed from a ten commandment ,personal responsabilty, and common sense society, to a narcissistic, feel good [feelings] I am a victim society. And DRUGS.
I can agree with that. The problem is the same the world over.
2 I do not think there are any comparable western countries. Maybe in a way the balkins.
Many countries have an immigrant population. So you are not unique
3 I dont know the name of the city in Canada so I could be wrong. Never the less its minorites are not comparable to detroit.I know there has been a lot of tension between Quebec and British Columbia and thier societies are similiar.Their are many,many cities in America virtually crime free.
They did have a minority. But what makes a Canadian minority less dangerous than an American minority? It is true about many if not most American cities being crime free. I know I have experienced it.
Canada may or may not have as many guns as America,I have thought they were much stricter. Maybe some one can help on that. Moore is wrong on everything including this about the media.
I'm no expert on Canadian gun law either. But they like guns their too and can buy them easily enough
Lazs comment had connotations of racism, how so ? If there is a truth, in Ireland ,and you say it, is the person who says it, labaled as a [anything]?
I didn't actually say or imply Lazs comment had connotations of racism nor am I hinting that what he said is racist. I don't dispute the truth of it one way or the other. Racism comes into it if you suggest the problem is basically caused by black people because they are black. That is as bad as saying guns are the problem when basically it's a people problem whatever the hue.
No, according to the fbi ,poor whites are not as likely to be involved in gun crimes as poor blacks. Yet, well off whites, are more likely to be serial killers.
Poorness or otherwise may not be the issue. More it's marginalisation and ghetto mentality. Any minority can suffer from that.
No, you forget ,many of the so called uneducated, under privileged people in the US, are better off than most of the outside worlds middleclass.Existing around the edges of society is a European thing ,not American.
You mean your poor are better off than our poor? It's all relative anyway, and I feel you have an outdated view of European society. No one goes hungry anymore not least because of extensive social welfare systems.
Bad housing, poor education,and poverty kills people? Wow what an elitist point of view,yep you are from across the pond.
If that is true,explain to me the fact that the great majority of the uneducated and poor people in America cause no problems? The uneducated and poor helped build America. I grew up in an area that was lower middle class,we were poor, and guess what, since we didnt have everybody, and their uncle telling us,
we didnt know we were poor.
We have a lot in common then. I grew up exactly the same way. We didn't know we were poor either. No car, no vacations, no expensive toys. But we had a great time as kids. Do not for heaven sake call me elitist. I can't afford to be elitist. I don't get paid enough. I had to borrow money to get by this month. Rich I'm not. But bad housing, poverty and bad education does kill people. Most of us get through it. Not everyone has the brains to do it though.
Law abiding citizens have always had the need for weapons to protect themselves. Those that didnt have them some where along the line ended up in a Russia,Germany,France[at time of revolution] Sudan, well you get the point.
Well both the French and Russian revolutions were by the people just like America. People with arms overthrowing the regime. It wasn't imposed on them from above. They fought for it.
Yes , What I said in 1st paragraph is the problem.
Nashwan said:
Does it though? If I wanted a handgun to committ a crime, I wouldn't know where to start, and I'd probably end up getting robbed by some shady character in a pub when I approached him about buying one.
Without implicating myself LOL. It could be done easily enough. I know I could get one without too much difficulty. It's really a case of knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone. If you are a criminal you will undoubtedly know someone who knows someone. The point being that the only people who can get handguns these days are criminals and the only way to buy one is from a criminal. But you do confirm my point about the lowest social class committing all the crime. The same is true everywhere. Not all of them just a minority. My further point being that it's not the guns that are the issue but the marginalisation. Isn't it fair to say that in Britain much of the crime originates in the 'sink' estates populated mostly by marginalised white people? The only difference between Britain and America is wider availability of guns.
-
Nashwan....assuming Amrican...
Boy am I glad I said assuming,would have had egg on my face lol.
No problem now that I know you are British,I can say what the heck do you know about us ...lol nah just kidding. Id like to maybe touch on a couple of points.
I disagree with your take on your fbi stats and agree more with lazs,and I have my own as guns are important to me.I thought it fair if you knew that.
America was born different than other countries. We never had the, only nobles and army have weapons experence. Our founding fathers did ,that is why the 2nd add.
And until oh the last 30 years we would fight at drop of hat to protect them. Since then at least 45 percent of Americans,[the left] have imbraced the european Idea of egalitarism and have foresaken tha idea of liberty.Sad but the too can not live together.
Hence this fight about guns.
I hope you would read my post to cpxxx ,the first part and see if it makes any sense to you,about the poor to.
Yes the urban poor do commit the bulk of crime, and yes that means a larger number of black and hispanics, with white poor coming behind these to groups. I didnt make this up it is fbi stats.
And dont forget this black crime is black on black mostly.So has very little to do with racism. I couldnt see where lazs was saying anything else.
I really think you missed on removing criminal class statement.He didnt say remove the whole group as a hole , he said remove the criminal class. There is a criminal class now because of what I said in other post. Remember I said most of black crime is black on black, then dont you think the great majority of law abiding blacks, hispanic,asian and white would like to have them removed? Of course, I you did that, it would only take away a small portion of the poor.
Canada and most of you all on other side of the pond dont see the great diversity America has. Look at the Balkins and what they have done, they are probally the closest to us in that way.
American whites do have double the rate of murders than the british. Yet do you not think, the fact we have what,, 175 million more white people, as compared to your whole population, might have something to do with it? No we are not talking about removing a whole anything, he was just trying to level the playing field as I just did with population difference.
We all know your quote; I dont want to get in a race debate with you was unfair. It is part of it,and part of the stats, nothing racist about it.
guns make it easier to defend yourself in an exploding narcissistic
society, and you cant stop felons from gitting anything they want .
Now you say you have discussed this a lot ,here is something I bet you have never heard, and I cant wait to see the reactions.
I am glad the punks at columbine had guns.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The only difference between Britain and America is wider availability of guns.
That's not the only thing... they also drive on the wrong side of the street and don't speak English correct.
-
Howdy All,
I just spent the last two hours reading all three pages of this thread and I figured that I would comment on all of the things that stuck in head, so hear it goes.
I don't know about all of these statistics on murder rates and violent crimes, (not really my bag), but I do know that most that are reported on T.V. and the radio are B.S. How many of those crimes involved crack heads killing crack heads? The way I see it they are doing me a favor. THANKS FOR KILLING THE CRACK HEADS!!!
Kids and guns nowadays dont mix. Why? Lack of education. Yes I did grow up on a farm, (thanks for asking), and my mother has a wonderful picture of me shooting a .22 rifle for the first time at the age of four. My father of course was helping me out a bit. All of my friends were and are hunters and target shooters. Today instead of education parents decide to shield their kids away from anything "bad". Why is a firearm bad? It is only a hunk of metal, it cant think. So the person behind the trigger has to think for it. EDUCATION,EDUCATION, EDUCATION!!!
Firearms are produced for things besides killing. Just so happens that those things sometimes make them better killing machines. Take a run-of-the-mill target rifle with a scope. As long as you drink your coffee in the morning, (tea for the British folk), It should not be a problem for a decent shot to hit a target or deer, (read person), at four-hundered yards. The firearm is capable of doing it, the person behind the trigger has to make the decisions. Remember firearms cant think.
My list of currently owned firearms goes like this- Marlin .22 bolt used for targets and a rabbit or squirrel here and there, Vipper .22 Semi. used for targets, (not allowed to hunt with semi. autos in PA), Ruger 10/22 .22 for targets, .30/40 Krag Carbine bolt for my whitetail medicine, (90 years old and still one hell of a rifle), Savage .30/06 bolt that I usually loan to a friend for hunting, (2) 7.62 Russians that were my grandfather's, Sako .222 for groundhogs, Hawkens type .50 cal. muzzleloader for PA muzzleloader deer season, Yugo SKS 59/66, (with bayonet), for the hell of it, single shot .410, (first shotgun), Mossberg 500 12ga., Ithica Model 37 20ga. for all of my small game needs, (3) .22 revolvers, Colt King Cobra .357 mag., Jennings 9mm, (cheap but fires pretty dam good), and a Kimber .45 ACP, (main means of personal defense). Next on the list is an AK type of firearm just because they are fun and I want one. All of these firearms have a purpose to me in one way or another.
MG34 machine guns are nice but do yourself a favor and get an M60. They are somewhat of a development of the WWII German machine guns with improvements. For God's sake take the M14 over the M16, and a tight .45 over the 9mm. I would not mind having a rocket launcher or a few grenades. The Forth of July would never be the same.
I don't know alot about Britian, but the way I see it, they are over there and we are over here. Does not concern me what the crime over there is. Hell, most of the crime here does'ent affect me either because I am one of those people that live on the ranch. I do agree with the Europeans talking a bit to much but like I said, I do not know that much about the other side of the pond.
I understand that people from different parts of the country or the world have different views on gun control. Thats fine, everybody can have their own opinion, just don't expect me to agree with it. Thats the great thing about being free, I DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. But the sad part is with gun control you are making me agree with you. Well screw that, give me back my forty round clips, I want to go destroy a cardboard box!
Back to the kids one more time. If you have one then you firearms should be kept away from them. Not sitting half way off of a closet shelf. Even if they have been taught proper firearm safety. This applies to all people that have not been taught the correct way to handle a firearm, even if they are eighty years old.
Just some things to think about.
-
Laz, all...... I think it's a mindset thing here. I don't think this thread will produce much change in either mindset. I've run into allot of people during my life that quite simply did not WANT to know the truth, or at least what I understood to be the truth. In fact some of them got very angry at me for some of the truths I shared. They admited later that I was correct but they did not like it. Some people prefer a view point of life that, to me anyway, ignores basic reality.
I think the main problem here is understanding of our (American's) way of seeing things.
Granted I see more and more today the european mindset coming out of our young people, and too many of our older people.
Our FREEDOM is not based on the same things as the Europeans. We don't need permission from anyone for our rights. That seems to be changing but when I was young that was the basic view.
Another example was put forward by a judge in Mexico. He said he expected anyone that cane before him to lie. Even seemed proud of it. In America Judge's expected about 50% of the people that came before them to tell the truth. It used to be a issue of you got the rights respect em by accepting the responsibility for your actions words and deeds. Now it's more of what can you get away with. How much money can you make. Etc...
That, I think, is the real issue.
Oh and has anyone yet addressed the issue of the grin?????
You know look in the mirror. Smile or grin. Start in the center and count 3 goin left or right. What tooth is that??? It's a fang cause YOU ARE A PREDATOR.
I don't care if you like it or not it's TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
nash... read the figures again... in the ones that take all (total murders by all means) you have to reduce those numbers to 66.7 which is the total for ALL firearms murders. reply to the figures I point out not different ones.
I will admit that the FBI data seems to contradict itself from time to time on total murders but the 66.7 figure is the only one mentioned.
As for the racial issue... It is important only when people ask why we have so many murders in the U.S. and then try to blame a bunch of white folks in pointed hoods out shooting poor blacks out of fear as moore portrayed in "bowling" When it is brought out that 15% of the population commits allmost 60% of the homidcides it becomes an important issue.
Whites and lawful blacks would seem to need to be armed more rather than less.
But.. no matter the cause... be it cap[italism or too much freedom or whatever... it exists and the fact that the more people who carry guns the less crime. this is irrefutable.
If you remove handguns you remove the largest deterent to crime. The few unjustified homicides are so far outweighed by the millions of crimes a year prevented with handguns that to ban them would be like banning walking the streets because of people hit by meteorites while walking the streets.
In fact... one allways has to suspect the motives of those who would ban guns... those in england seem to have anm "elite" atttitude where only the upper class can be trusted with anything. the peasants are too.... you fill in the blank.
America is different... the peasant you see today may be the part of the economic upper class the next.
do what you like to keep the peasant subject down in your country... it is your folly.. your crime goes up and your royalty tells you to eat cake.
lazs
-
also... I will respond to the "I'm glad that the punks at columbine had guns".... I am glad too but I am sick at heart that no one else did... just as I was sickened about the luby Texas resteraunt incident where a madman killed peopl at will when several had guns in their car that they had left there because of a new city ordinance that prohibited guns in resteraunts.
I also believe that the difference is that Americans more than any people (especialy country ones) do not like to be victims. Many europeans accept vitimhood... they pass laws to make it unlawful to defend yourself agains criminals... they make you the criminal...this has some positive effect.. the criminals feel no need to cause injury or death (most of the time) to make a point... in the U.S. the criminals are much more violent no matter how they are armed.
nash feels it is unfair to remove the black or as he calls them "the criminal class" from the stats... I think it is more than relevant to do so... it is a goal... you must make harsher penalties for committing crime with a gun while at the same time making it easier for the rest of the citizens (not subjects) to own and carry firearms.
What you then have is a very low firearms crime rate (non criminal class Americans seldome abuse firearms) and a well protected citizenry with normal human rights to defense.
Nash admits that only the criminals are the problem... Lott says this also and points out that the criminals will continue to be criminals no matter what... they may not be armed wioth firearms as much but they will continue to commit crime and.... with less deterent... you will have the runnaway crime that is in england and australia since their draconian gun bans.
I also think that flash represents the average American gun owner and thank him for his comments. They have no idea of the numbers... they see the talking heads and know it is bull... They know firearms are simply a valuable tool.
lazs
-
Originally posted by TalonX
You are not an American, are you?
I think this strikes at the core differences..... as Ben Franklin said.....you want security and are willing to give up freedom.
I am not.
Not American. What freedom am I supposed to have given up? I have never owned or needed a gun. Neither did my parents. Neither did any of my aunts and uncles. Neither did my grandparents. I fail to see the correlation between gun ownership and "freedom", even though the correlation is made repeatedly on this board. I'm with Nashwan on gun ownership. I don't want to become a slave to a gun - I don't want to feel compelled to keep one, and the only reason to keep one would be if I felt threatened from outside. I do not feel threatened from outside because as Nashwan says, because guns are banned, it's very difficult for criminals to acquire them. Or at least it used to be. Britain isn't the best example of a gun free society any more. Bermuda where Curval lives is a better example of a society free from gun crime - and how to achieve that. Indeed, Bermuda has a freedom which America does not - freedom from gun crime. I would much rather have freedom of that sort than the freedom to purchase a piece of hardware...
...as for freedom, I don't see owning a gun as any more of a freedom statement than owning a car, a DVD recorder or a potato peeler. I mean - so bloody what???
Demaw said Law abiding citizens have always had the need for weapons to protect themselves.
No-one in my family has ever owned weapons of any kind - and we're all law abiding!
-
A lot of that attitude has it's roots in the feudal constitutions, where one and the same law prohibited the rustici in general from carrying arms, and also proscribed the use of nets, snares, or other engines for destroying the game.
In short, England has no real tradition of public hunting. Thus it's not unusual that many feel no need for a gun and in fact have little if any knowledge of guns and hunting.
The US is quite different; here (once we threw the English out) game belonged to the public. Even on private land, public law determined game use. Hunting and guns have always been available to the common man and the tradition dates to before we were a Republic.
-
So why the need for the second amendment? To guarantee hunting rights?
-
No. In 1789, it was to ensure the common man's use of arms.
I'm just saying that a lot of today's indifference to having or not having guns in countries like yours is because there is no real history of use of or right to arms by the common man. In fact, in those countries the common man was usually prohibited from owning/using arms.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Not American. What freedom am I supposed to have given up? I have never owned or needed a gun. Neither did my parents. Neither did any of my aunts and uncles. Neither did my grandparents. I fail to see the correlation between gun ownership and "freedom", even though the correlation is made repeatedly on this board. I'm with Nashwan on gun ownership. I don't want to become a slave to a gun - I don't want to feel compelled to keep one, and the only reason to keep one would be if I felt threatened from outside. I do not feel threatened from outside because as Nashwan says, because guns are banned, it's very difficult for criminals to acquire them. Or at least it used to be. Britain isn't the best example of a gun free society any more. Bermuda where Curval lives is a better example of a society free from gun crime - and how to achieve that. Indeed, Bermuda has a freedom which America does not - freedom from gun crime. I would much rather have freedom of that sort than the freedom to purchase a piece of hardware...
...as for freedom, I don't see owning a gun as any more of a freedom statement than owning a car, a DVD recorder or a potato peeler. I mean - so bloody what???
Demaw said No-one in my family has ever owned weapons of any kind - and we're all law abiding!
There you go. What is said above suggests the concept is NOT understood. And the wording seems to indicate the concept is not wanted, nor felt needful (although tone of voice might indicate better). Perhpas we should just allow ourselves to disagree??? Perhaps we are all being selfish???
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde Anglo-
Irish author.
There is actually no common base here. No shared starting point.
It's very much like one is talking about apples and the other oranges.
Freedom is not OWNING or doing anything it's the ability to OWN or do things if you wish. Whenever anyone says you can't own or do something that is when you become less free.
"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free
to do then in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer
American philosopher.
To someone like me .... IF you are willing to give others that much control over your freedom/liberty in order to FEEL safer then to us you are doing what B. Franklin refers to. You are giving up freedom/liberty for security and thus you deserver neither and will probably lose both.
I say FEEL because no matter what laws are made there are still individuals that ignore them and will do horrible things because they want to. It could even be argued the ones doing the horrible things are actually more free then those they harm because they ignore the law or make it their own.
To me we live in a world of predators ...
"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely
municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I
believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good
manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men
that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy
except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on
the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist
..... Granted most have their instincts under very firm control. Hey that's what's supposed to make us civilized isn't it? Yet there is always some that don't and probably don't want to.
No one ever claimed having freedom or liberty was SAFE.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Anglo-Irish playwright, critic
True freedom means you are free to work or set and starve. No one is required to feed you if you are healthy enough to work.
I could go on and on and on but see that we do not have a common base to discuss this from. The viewpoints, the starting point, the basic approach to life held by each, for discussing this is not there.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Freedom is not OWNING or doing anything it's the ability to OWN or do things if you wish. Whenever anyone says you can't own or do something that is when you become less free.
I don't entirely agree. It's great being able to buy a new car, house or holiday. But the freedom for a nascent criminal to own a gun is going to be bad news for some - especially the victim of his first crime.
There are two broad choices. - Allow everyone to own guns, and then live in fear of criminals with guns, and see an annual homicide rate expressed as a five digit value. That's the American way.
- Ban gun ownership, end enjoy freedom from gun crime. That's the Bermuda way. It's also the policy adopted by many other countries.
I would go with #2 every time.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't entirely agree. It's great being able to buy a new car, house or holiday. But the freedom for a nascent criminal to own a gun is going to be bad news for some - especially the victim of his first crime.
There are two broad choices. - Allow everyone to own guns, and then live in fear of criminals with guns, and see an annual homicide rate expressed as a five digit value. That's the American way.
- Ban gun ownership, end enjoy freedom from gun crime. That's the Bermuda way. It's also the policy adopted by many other countries.
I would go with #2 every time. [/B]
On #1
Actually the 5 digit value would become very low in a fairly short time. Once those with a real strong criminal bent were gone or in prison things would probably settle down considerably.
And if you want #2 welcome to it. IMHO a big husky fresh out of prison person, should that one chose to kill you, is gonna cause you allot more pain with a bat, or a knife, or club, or chain. or even their bare knuckles, then with a gun.
And as I said before it seems the concept is NOT wanted or understood.
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of
vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
W. R. Inge (1860-1954)
Dean of St. Paul's, London
The problem seems to be so many want to take away our rights. They seem to start just like the idea's presented in this thread. Thus the responses.
"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we
are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love."
Wendell L. Willkie (1892-1944)
Ameican lawyer, businessman, politician
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Anglo-American writer
-
Actually the 5 digit value would become very low in a fairly short time.
It isn't happening in America. And if you want #2 welcome to it. IMHO a big husky fresh out of prison person, should that one chose to kill you, is gonna cause you allot more pain with a bat, or a knife, or club, or chain. or even their bare knuckles, then with a gun.
Well thanks! I wonder how many bat/knife/club/chain wielding guys fresh out of prison terrorise the inhabitants of Bermuda/Japan/Singapore etc...
-
Beetle....
Come on beetle even nash said our murder rate was twice that of yours,stands to reason if you had the number of people we have you might have more murders.
It never ceases to amaze me, how fast common sense goes out the window, for those who want to take away some one elses freedom.
Your granddad didnt have a weapon.Depending on how old you are ,are you sure about that.? At beginning of world war 2 the british didnt have enough weapons to supply their army much less home defence. Churchill asked those who had weapons to turn them in for army etc. 73 million pistols,rifles,shotguns became available....He said ,paraphasing , England is glad you did not obey the gun laws.The chances of your granddad having one was pretty good.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No. In 1789, it was to ensure the common man's use of arms.
I'm just saying that a lot of today's indifference to having or not having guns in countries like yours is because there is no real history of use of or right to arms by the common man. In fact, in those countries the common man was usually prohibited from owning/using arms.
Guns were banned here in 1971 after the governor, his aide de camp and his dog were all shot.
My father had to hand in his two rifles.
As far as "history" goes we have lots. Like running guns to the Yanks in the War of Independence, turning a blind eye to the raiding of the gun-power arsenal here by the Americans, and also running the Yankee blockades in the Civil War...purely for profit of course.
We were an "equal opportunity" colony of Britain. ;)
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Your granddad didnt have a weapon.Depending on how old you are ,are you sure about that.?
I'm positive. One grandfather suffered long term illness for about 12 years and died in 1950. The other was a businessman but died in 1946 aged 62 (smoked too many cigs). Neither of them ever wore a raccoon on his head. :p
-
In 1996, America had 110,000 deaths (more than three times the number from guns) and according to a BBC report Great Britian had 33,000 deaths in 1997 related to the same thing.
Something that dangerous that is not required for everyday life should be outlawed don't you think?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's not the only thing... they also drive on the wrong side of the street and don't speak English correct.
I hate to be the one to correct your use of English, but I believe you should have used "correctly" instead of "correct" in the above sentence.
All this talk about guns being evil got to me, and I conducted an experiment. I got my Glock 9mm, loaded it, and placed it on the dresser. I stood in front of it, made faces at it, mooned it, and called it many different bad names (Colt, HK, Beretta, etc.). Guess what? The weapon never did a thing! It just layed there like an inanimate object!
-
Originally posted by debuman
I hate to be the one to correct your use of English, but I believe you should have used "correctly" instead of "correct" in the above sentence.
Really?:eek: Ain't never woulda guessed.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It isn't happening in America. Well thanks! I wonder how many bat/knife/club/chain wielding guys fresh out of prison terrorise the inhabitants of Bermuda/Japan/Singapore etc...
You know, I wonder how much good a dose of public humiliation would do to first time criminals. Or the REAL threat of the death penalty for those that deserve it. Maybe then people in the US would have the same sense of shame and consequence that some of these other countries have. Until then, we STILL have career criminals on the streets, even here in Hawaii. The state just put away a guy named Shane Mark for second degree murder in the shooting of Officer Glen Gaspar. By the way, since he was a career criminal, he wasn't supposed to have a gun in the first place - so where the f did he get it? Some people just have no sense of right and wrong and no shame - no sense of "if I did this, I'd dishonor my family." If you're so lucky as to live where the majority of people respect each other as well as themselves, then good. If not, that's the hand you're dealt with.
By the way, even if somehow crime in the US were to miraculously become as low as that of rural Japan tomorrow, I'd still want to do this:
(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/laub016/21.jpg)
US Army Marksmanship Unit - High Power Rifle
or this:
(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/laub016/gun store mp5.jpg)
Me renting an H&K MP-5 in Las Vegas
or even this:
(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/laub016/2003_NYWTC_01.jpg)
Michele Frangilli of Italy
...and although I'm not into hunting, I admire those who stalk and hunt for food - so I wouldn't mind the continued freedom of doing that either.
mauser
-
Originally posted by debuman
I hate to be the one to correct your use of English, but I believe you should have used "correctly" instead of "correct" in the above sentence.
All this talk about guns being evil got to me, and I conducted an experiment. I got my Glock 9mm, loaded it, and placed it on the dresser. I stood in front of it, made faces at it, mooned it, and called it many different bad names (Colt, HK, Beretta, etc.). Guess what? The weapon never did a thing! It just layed there like an inanimate object!
Glad to see that you noticed the use of the word "correct" instead of "correctly". Why are Americans so loathe to use adverbs?
But then you made a mistake of your own. The past participle of the verb "to lay" is laid, not layed.
Your inanimate object scenario is as corny as it is old. I have already explained that more than one ingredient is needed to produce a gunshot: A gun, some ammunition, and the person who fires the gun. Too bad if that person is an idiot. We have gun laws which work, but may not work perfectly. The laws are designed to keep guns out of the hands of idiots. But since we cannot legislate against idiots, we do the next best thing which is to keep guns out of circulation. But Oh! I hear you cry, this keeps guns out of the hands of the law abiding. Yes it does, and that is necessary because we don't want criminals to be able to steal them. According to some of the excellent research done by Nashwan further up this thread, theft from legitimate owners is one of the key methods that criminals have of obtaining guns. That, plus unscrupulous sales of guns on the black market to make a profit.
Today's lesson is to learn these sums. Are you good at sums? - Gun = safe
- Idiot = safe
- Gun + Idiot = Boom
- House + gun in locked safe = safe
- House + unsecured gun = risk (opportunist thief/criminal)
- Solving the above equation, we get House - unsecured gun = opportunist thief + gun = danger.
- opportunist thief + gun + alcohol = bigger danger
- opportunist thief + gun = opportunity to sell gun unlawfully.
- jilted lover + opportunity to buy gun = risk
- jilted lover + gun + confrontation with former lover = homicide.
We'll move on to multiplication and division in next week's lesson.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Glad to see that you noticed the use of the word "correct" instead of "correctly". Why are Americans so loathe to use adverbs?
Because my statement wouldn't have been funny if I'd have used english properly?
Gun = safe
Idiot = Safe
Idiot + Gun = Boom
Glad you are safe from guns...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Or shoot targets....or shoot clay pidgeons....
You allways have to have a PERSON pulling the trigger or "fiddleing" with it or leaving it to be "played" with by a child unatended
Clay Pidgeons are harder than hell to clean and no matter how you cook them they still taste like chit!
:D
-
beet1e you forgot:
* Guns + Insecure High School Kids + Black Trench Coats + Anger = Colombine.
:(
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Glad you are safe from guns...
If only I could be safe from idiots...
-
No problem...protection from one's self is the purpose of government regulation!
-
beetle said.."Bermuda where Curval lives is a better example of a society free from gun crime - and how to achieve that. Indeed, Bermuda has a freedom which America does not - freedom from gun crime. I would much rather have freedom of that sort than the freedom to purchase a piece of hardware... "
yes... the tiny little island of england is now to large to make gun laws work... u have to use an even smaller little island to make gun control work.... perhaps a prison would be a good example of gun control working.
Yes... yu are relatively free of guns in england... especialy if you are one of the ruling class in the neighborhoods that are avoided by criminals who prey on the rest of the tthe "subjects"... yes... you are free to be a victim in england.
So just how tiny does a place have to be to make gun control work? bermuda seems to be about max size unless yu populate an island with nothing but japs.
beetle says that losing your right to defend yourself from the tyranny of others from within and without is simply losing your rigtht to "purchase a piece of hardware." this is about like saying that losing the internet is like losing your freedom to purchase a piece of hardware.
lazs
-
awmac... your equation is wrong... or not complete. columbine would only have happened if the bad guys were the only ones in the school that were armed.
"Guns + Insecure High School Kids + Black Trench Coats + Anger = Colombine"
In order to be more accurate....it should have to read..
"Guns in the hands of insecure high school kids and no one else+ Insecure High School Kids + Black Trench Coats + Anger = Colombine"
without them being the only ones armed... they simply remain.... angry and cowardly.
lazs
-
err ahh Laz ..... ahhh hmmm
C. Heston said much the same thing and then the media jumped on it.
According to certain reports put out by the media at the time .....
There was an armed guard at the school :(
(wonder why? wonder what his actual purpose was supposed to be? Armed guards at highschools?????)
The guard and the kids actually exchanged fire at one point :(
The guard ran away and called law enforcement in :(
Apparently the guard had never been in a firefight :(
The pucker factor was abit more then he was perhaps prepared for, hmmm thinkin about it, it was probably pretty high for someone that thought they were only dealing with kids/teens.
-
As I've tried to get across before the gun argument is a red herring. Yes there is a problem with handgun accidents. Sure ban handguns and that problem goes away. But it won't stop gun crime. Everyone is skirting around the real issue.
Guns are not the real problem. Despite too strict gun laws in this country there are apparently 230,000 guns in the hand of gun owners. With a population 3.5 million that is a lot of firearms per head. One for every thirteen people. Yet gun crime is largely restricted to a few criminal gangs with illegal or stolen weapons and is rare enough that the uniformed police are still unarmed and don't even wear body armour. With that number of weapons in circulation you might think lots of people die in gun accidents here. But they don't. The same is true of most of the United States. So guns are not the problem.
The problem is the perception that you need a gun for protection
People like Beetle focussing on guns completely miss the point. The fact that Lazs recently bought several Makarov pistols for his family for protection point to the fact he, probably rightly feels they need the protection the guns give. That's the issue in my opinion, despite the fact that in most of America crime is minimal and even non existent many people have such fear that they own guns for protection.
The issue is that fear. If it's genuine then the reasons should be addressed. If it's not genuine then why the fear?
Scapegoating guns for the problems of society doesn't cut it. There are bigger issues here crime whether with a gun or not is a sympton not a cause.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yes... the tiny little island of england is now to large to make gun laws work... u have to use an even smaller little island to make gun control work.... perhaps a prison would be a good example of gun control working.
Our gun control does work; I never said it worked perfectly. Imperfect though it may be, gun homicides have never exceeded 100 in any calendar year - about 1% of the typical US total.
I mentioned Bermuda because, according to Curval, the gun control does work - perfectly. So I was citing Bermuda as a textbook example.HMcG - No problem...protection from one's self is the purpose of government regulation!
Thanks for the advice - glad it worked for you!
-
Aw mack........columbine...
I for one am so glad those black trench coated kids at columbine had guns.
Beetle, your gun laws dont work, 33000 deaths from a place with no guns and a population as small as yours .... wow great laws.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Beetle, your gun laws dont work, 33000 deaths from a place with no guns and a population as small as yours .... wow great laws.
Incorrect. What's your source? In most years out of the last 10 that I have checked, there have been about 750 homicides, of which about 60 are gun related. From where do you get 33,000?
-
Cpxxx.....fear.....and the need for 2nd adm.
I dont think lazs purchased the weapons because of fear, but a true desire to protect his family.
Ireland may have less reason to need to protect family,for many reasons.
The overriding reason for the second admendment is best said by thomas jefferson,president of the united states of america. paraphasing....It is the right, no, it is the duty of every american to own and know how to use their weapon of choice. It will be incombant upon each citizen to rise up and overthrow this goverment if it were to become dictoral in nature.
That is the main reason for 2nd amendment. I believe that in the last 10 ,12 years the fact that so many are armed has stop this goverment from doing some things it has wanted. I also believe the same holds true of our past.
That is as true for today as it was for yesterday.
-
Beetle my source is nashwan.
-
I purchased the makarovs because they were a good deal and a couple of my family members could appreciate em... plus... they are very cool cold war history. Well made and fun to shoot. Both family members enjoy plinking and shooting at targets and will enjoy them.... the guns also provide for a sense of security real or imagined.
beetle... you are victims... your crime rate has skyrocketed... not yours personaly... your little islands, since your draconian gun ban... We simply don't like being victims like you apparently do. Ireland does not have the same view of your benevolent government that you do as cpx points out.
I don't know what our government would do if we were unarmed subjects instead of citizens... I am in no hurry to find out.
my younger years were spent with the dregs of society.. I live a different life now in a neighborhood where being attacked is allmost inconcievable... but... I know the same people (or their younger ilk) I used to hang out with still exist .. and I am habituated.. My nature is to be friendly but cautious. I know what fear is... I can't say that fear enters into it these days. Habit and caution are about it.
course... there are allways the zombies.
I like guns... criminals and tyrants don't want me to have em... women and neurotics and foreigners don't want me to have em.
too bad for them.
I can't belive that murderers would cease being murderers if somehow all the guns disapeared. If there were a reduction in homicides I douht that it would be enough to notice... what we would notice was a huge increase in crime against persons. like england we would have burglars break into our homes when we were at home. like england we would have to be told that resisting criminals is illegal... helping someonme being victimized would have to be illegal.
no thanks
lazs
-
The white homicide rate in America is about 5000 a year. in england it is between 750 and a thousand a year but... with a population of 1/6th ours...
your rate is just as high... sure ... they are useing other weapons generally but... so what? you are as bad as we are..
you gave up your human rights for nothing... worse... you have made things much worse... Our crime rate continues to fall while yours skyrockets.
lazs
-
Lazs - one thing you should know is that Ireland (where cpx is from) and the UK (which includes England) are two separate EU member states. "Our" government does not govern Ireland. The reason for our crime rate has nothing to do with guns. We are currently governed by Tony Blair and his cronies, and they have stipulated that our total prison population must never exceed 80,000. Because of that, some criminals are having to be released too early, and lots of people who should go to prison do not. Guns are nothing to do with it.
And I haven't given anything up.
-
Beetle my source is nashwan.
Huh?
I don't think I said anything about the UK's rate, did I? Apart from saying about 70 people were shot dead in England and Wales last year.
Certainly our homicide rate, which includes negligent homicide, which the US figures don't, is around 700 - 1000 a year.
Down slightly last year, and the firearms homicide rate was down by 18% iirc.
The white homicide rate in America is about 5000 a year. in england it is between 750 and a thousand a year
No, we have a problem with Yardie gangs over here killing each other for control of the drug trade.
The government won't break the figures down by race in the UK, but Operation Trident, the London police department focusing on "black on black" drugs crime in London, were put in charge of 70 murder investigations last year, iirc.
beetle... you are victims... your crime rate has skyrocketed... not yours personaly... your little islands, since your draconian gun ban
Well, no it hasn't actually, but as it makes a nice headline I'm sure you'll keep repeating it.
The actual crime rate has gone down in Britain over the last ten years, the headline rate has gone up because of changes in the way crimes are counted.
you gave up your human rights for nothing... worse... you have made things much worse... Our crime rate continues to fall while yours skyrockets.
Our murder rate is down, yours has been going up for 3 years, iirc.
like england we would have to be told that resisting criminals is illegal... helping someonme being victimized would have to be illegal.
There's nothing at all illegal about resisiting criminals. You can use whatever level of force is appropriate, up to and including lethal force.
Guns are not the real problem. Despite too strict gun laws in this country there are apparently 230,000 guns in the hand of gun owners. With a population 3.5 million that is a lot of firearms per head. One for every thirteen people.
How many handguns?
And you say you have too strict gun laws, isn't that a sign they are working?
You cannot just go into a shop and buy a gun after a simple background check, can you?
And if you have a gun, it's traced to you, and you can't sell it to a crack dealer without the police wondering where it's gone.
Guns don't need to be banned to keep them from getting to criminals easily, they need to be controlled.
Lazs has quite a few handguns, from what I understand, and there is nothing to stop him selling them to neighbourhood criminals. Nothing at all.
It may be illegal, depending on state laws, but there's no mechanism in place to stop him doing it.
I'm not suggesting Lazs would, for all the arguments on here he I don't think he's irresponsible or a criminal. But if Lazs can do it, there's nothing to stop anyone else, either.
You can tell how hard it is for a criminal to get a gun in Britain by looking at the guns siezed by police. The last I saw, almost 70% of the handguns siezed by the police from criminals (and there weren't many), were air pistols or blank firers converted to fire 22 lr.
There was a popular British garage act (think equivalent of US rap group), So Solid Crew. They had quite a few hits, big name group. A couple of shootings at their gigs. One of their members was caught by police with a handgun. Again, a converted airpistol firing 22 lr.
For all the "mate of a mate of a mate", the best a multi millionaire garage group involved in the drugs and club scene of London could come up with was a converted airpistol.
-
Nashwan it is in your 5:59 pm post.
Beetle not sure where I got 33000, will look again .As is normal I will retract it if wrong.
Nashwan you said you wouldnt know where to get a gun in england..One of your fellow citizens here said it would be easy.
I know beyound a shadow of a doubt I could get a weapon in England in 1 week even though I have never been there.As a matter of fact I would do it to show you if certian conditions were meant.
Bottom line is
1. few countries are as diversified as we are,
2. your population is much smaller then ours and you never address that.
3. our imagration is much more leaniant than yours.
4. A mericans have never been subjects. while europe is use to it. Therefore the second admendment was not to protect hunting,but rather as a deterant from a hitler,stalin situration.
It would be our duty to try to overthrow such things,where as europe has always just sat around and let them happen.
Our motto is, give me LIBERTY, or give me death, your motto is, give me life no matter the cost.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In 1996, America had 110,000 deaths (more than three times the number from guns) and according to a BBC report Great Britian had 33,000 deaths in 1997 related to the same thing.
You got it from me demaw, but the number didn't refer to guns. Something far more deadly.
-
Thanks, been lookin in all the wrong places.
Ok beetle the 33000 number didnt come from nashwan, but from H. McGrion......But the other came from nashwan.
-
OK, but that 33,000 is wrong. It would take about 50 years for that many to die as a result of homicide in Britain, and probably about 3 years in the US.
You mentioned our smaller population. Population density here is higher than in the US. Do you know what our population actually is? Demaw said Americans have never been subjects. while europe is use to it. Therefore the second admendment was not to protect hunting,but rather as a deterant from a hitler,stalin situration.
Define a "subject" - do you mean one who lives in a country with a ruling Monarchy? Because most European countries do not have a Monarchy. And Nashwan has already covered your point about citizens being allowed to own firearms to mount an uprising in the face of an oppressive government. It might be a nice gesture, and it seems to make you happy to think that you could repulse your country's government with small arms. I think you'd find such an effort akin to a peasants' revolt, in the face of cruise missiles, cluster bombs etc. You guys on here are always crowing about your kick-arse military. Do you seriously think they could be stopped from entering your back yard if they wanted to? Like Nashwan says - take a look at Waco,TX.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Thanks, been lookin in all the wrong places.
Ok beetle the 33000 number didnt come from nashwan, but from H. McGrion......But the other came from nashwan.
LOL!!!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, but that 33,000 is wrong. It would take about 50 years for that many to die as a result of homicide in Britain, and probably about 3 years in the US.
BBC says 33,000 British deaths annually is right... just not in reference to guns or homicide. Just yet another way citizens of both countries die needlessly.
Aren't we going to try to stop it? The USA tried to in 1919.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
BBC says 33,000 British deaths annually is right... just not in reference to guns or homicide. Just yet another way citizens of both countries die needlessly.
Aren't we going to try to stop it? The USA tried to in 1919.
You're being too vague. What deaths? What causes? Old age????
-
I was just wondering whether saving 33,000 British lives annually was worth curtailing just a wee bit of your freedom.
You seem perfectly willing to argue that America needs to curtail her freedom to save those who are victims of gun violence.
-
According to the Home Office there were 1048 homicide offenses in 02/03 in England & Wales, 20 per 1 million (215 of these victims of Harold Shipman over the course of his career, 58 were illegal Chinese immigrants who sufficated while being smuggled in the back of a lorry).
According to the Scottish office there were 127 homicide offenses - 44 per 1 million.
Seems very high but rates of drug abuse and alcohol offenses are also significantly higher north of the border as well.
If you are wondering why the Sottish statistics are separate it is because Scotland has a seperate legal system to England and Wales.
I can't find stats for Northern Ireland (need to check the NI Office).
Somewhat less than 33K all told.
US DoJ quotes 5.5 per 100, 000 for 2000 (i.e. 55 per 1 million) but of course we may not be comparing like with like.
On the face of it if I live in England or Wales I am nearly three times less likely to be murdered than if I live in US, however if I live in Scotland I am only 20% less likely to be murdered.
Personally I am not against citizens owning firearms (I used to hold a license myself), but I do see it as privilege rather than a right (just like driving a car: I have to prove I am safe, I have to register my car and prove I look after it and I can have the privilege taken away if I abuse it).
I think the ban on hand guns was fairly futile, but it had little effect either way as hand gun ownership was so low anyway.
I don't see the need for fully automatic or very high calibre weapons (e.g. 50 cals): the damage they could cause if they were abused far outweighs any sporting or defence purposes IMHO.
I don't see the whole defence against tyranny argument at all: it might have made sense a couple of hundred years ago when a citizen could be sensibly armed with a weapon equivalent to what the government could use, but in the days of tanks and machineguns (let alone jets and smart bombs) it's pointless.
-
Originally posted by Pei
According to the Home Office there were 1048 homicide offenses in 02/03 in England & Wales....
Somewhat less than 33K all told.
BBC says 33,000 British deaths annually is right... just not in reference to guns or homicide. Just yet another way citizens of both countries die needlessly.
-
According to the Scottish office there were 127 homicide offenses - 44 per 1 million.
There's something wrong there. The population of Scotland is around 5,050,000. 127 murders is 25 per million.
US DoJ quotes 5.5 per 100, 000 for 2000 (i.e. 55 per 1 million) but of course we may not be comparing like with like.
The UK figures include manslaughter by negligence, the US figures specifically exclude it.
According to the Home Office there were 1048 homicide offenses in 02/03 in England & Wales, 20 per 1 million (215 of these victims of Harold Shipman over the course of his career, 58 were illegal Chinese immigrants who sufficated while being smuggled in the back of a lorry).
I believe the Chinese immigrants was in 2001/02.
The figures for 03/04 came out recently, the number of murders was 853, down 2% on the last year excluding shipman, down about 20% including Shipman.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You seem perfectly willing to argue that America needs to curtail her freedom to save those who are victims of gun violence.
I never ever said that. I have only ever commented on the status quo.
-
you guys crack me up... when I show that 1000 homicides a year in england is the same per capita homicide rate as all the white homicide rate in the U.S... that is total... guns or no guns.... you claim that it is because the minorities are not seperated from your rate... you don't even have a significant minority rate... if you did the problem would skyrocket even more...
So... you got rid of guns and got more crime with the same amopunt of homicides as white Amecica but... it is so much better to be bludgeouned to death or stabbed... personally... I will keep the guns and bring a handgun to all the knife fights I attend... All but 11 state find that works.
Then... when I point out that your crime has increased, crime against people like muggings and burglary and that you have over 50% of your burglaries being "hot" (owner home)....you claim it is because your government changed the way crimes are reported (in order to look like a poor government?) or that.... some politico is letting too many crooks out.
point is... unarmed people are being victimized by the government and strongarm crooks... you have just as high a murder rate besides.
As for guns in the U.S. more guns equal less crime here. it is proven over and over. more handguns is the the big factor... concealed carry.... less and less crooks are armed with guns as laws against crime using firearms are strengthened. Any crook here can get a gun with little trouble... outside of crazed ones and gang members.... most crooks avoid guns because of the increased penalties... it would matter not who I sold my guns to or... who sold em to me for that matter. waste of time to worry about it.
FBI studies show between 2 and three million crimes are prevented with firearms every year here. Allmost all the people who die are from firearms are bad guys or victims of cold blooded killers who kill and are never found... they would kill in any case. The white on white killings are just like in england... the same number. It wouldn't change except maybe rise if there were no guns.
you guys gave up your (and worse, your fellow "subjects") human right to defend yourselves..... for nothing... you even made things worse with your goody goody meddling. Your crimes against people continue to rise as does your murder rate and the rate that guns are being used.
oh... I believe that demaw is talking about booze... never seen so many boozers and smokers as in england... yet... you pansies are afraid of a tool you could use to defend yourselves? maybe you are right beetle and nash....maybe you drunks shouldn't have tools tho.
You sissies got suckered into giving up your means to defend yourself so now you want everyone else to suffer too. you are simply frieghtened and jealous... there can be no other motive...the "dishonest, ignorant or both" explanation applies the most to foreighners who have no stake in our laws save their own private neurosis.
lazs
-
Got in on this a little late, but I couldn`t help but notice the number of posts on the first page concerning the M16 as used by a criminal and the thoughts concerning gun control to deny criminals guns.
First off, as has been stated, the M16 is rarely used in a crime.
If I were going for full auto fire power , the M16 would be way down the list.
I don`t really know are care how gun control pans out in other countries, but here in the U.S. more gun control simply plays into the bad guys hands. In other words it makes their "job" a lot easier. The only thing more gun control does here is deny the private citizen that wishs to observe the law a means by which to deter or stop the baddies and to protect themselves.
As for as denying criminals guns with gun control , simply put it`s plain hogwash.
Do you ever stop and think about how many thousands and thousands of guns there are out there that or not registered or ANY records what so ever on them? Do you know how easy they are to get?
There was a county in the north east United States that ran an experiment. I believe it was in the 80`s or possibly early 90`s. For a certain period of time they made it legal for any person without a record to legaly carry a concealed handgun. This area had a very, very high crime rate. The outcome on the experiment? Their crime rate dropped to one of the lowest in the U.S. in a little over a month. It`s a whole new ballgame when when some modern day wanna be Jessie James pulls up in front of the local 7/11 with a little quick cash on his mind and has to stop and wonder if the little white haired lady behind the register might be packin a 44 under her smock.
If all else were to fail for the career criminal due to gun control, (which will never happen), got any idea how easy it is to turn out quality firearms in a simple home shop with a few inexpensive machining tools? In prohibition booze was made illegal and it spurred one of the biggest and most profitable criminal industres in history. Same will happen if gun control reaches a certain level and in some cases is allready happening.
Getting back to the full auto topic, I said if I wanted full auto the M!6 wouldn`t be a choice. If I wasn`t particularly interested on abiding by some laws their are a lot better ways to go.
Do you know how many semi-autos there are that can be converted very simply to full auto with an expense of
10 to 20 dollars? Most of these are far more reliable than the M16 and with more fire power. Even these are avoided in most criminal situations because they are totaly unnecessary.
These are very violent times and seem to be getting worse. Sticking your head under your pillow and pretending this doesn`t exist doen`t feed the bulldog when you hear your door being kicked in at 3:00 AM.
I at least want a chance to defend my family when and if this happens. I`ve looked down the wrong end of a barrel and have seen the muzzle flash meant to take me out. Time stops, vision goes tunnel in a heartbeat. You react on instinct or die . Simple as that.
Any of us might get taken out violently. It`s just a fact of the times we live in. For me, I like to have the odds stacked in my favor as much as possible.
-
LOL Lazs! How long did it take you to type all that?
Oh wait - you cut-n-pasted it from the end of another gun thread. :lol
-
nope... no cut and paste. As for length... read nashwans stuff... he is more concerned about gun control in the U.S. than most Americans are... got to wonder about his motives.
I think he is jealous with a touch of elitism thrown in for good measure... you know "only the elite deserve weapons.. everyone else is too stupid or crazy" It is a "ruling class" thing yu brits have I guess... We don't think that way here thank gawd.
lazs
-
you guys crack me up... when I show that 1000 homicides a year in england is the same per capita homicide rate as all the white homicide rate in the U.S... that is total... guns or no guns
You haven't Lazs.
Whites committed almost half the murders in the US. There were 16000 murders in the US. That means at least 7,000 murders by whites.
The white population of the US is 225,600,000
That works out at a white murder rate of 3.1 per 100,000
The number for England and Wales is 853 murders, a rate of 1.7 per 100,000.
That's a rate for everybody in the UK, and the US rate, by removing blacks who tend to be poorer, is far more biased to the middle class.
You white's only, adjusted to the middle class rate is still nearly twice our overall rate.
ou claim that it is because the minorities are not seperated from your rate... you don't even have a significant minority rate... if you did the problem would skyrocket even more...
I think the last census found around 8% of the population of England and Wales was what you'd describe a non-white.
-
8% is a pitance... not enough to work up their courage and have a good riot.
There are plenty of poor whites... what is it about the poor that makes you think they are such criminals?
The FBI stats show that of the 14,000 homicides about 5,000 could be attributed to whites. that is more like a third than a half. even if a substantial portion of the unsolved homicides were attributed to whites... you would still be talking a difference of allmost nothing per capita between your country and ours. my guess would be that more of the right people die in our country and more of the wrong ones in yours too.
If a holdup pair is in a gunfight and one of the holdup men is killed... the other is charged with murder.
Why do you missrepresent the figures in every case? you seem to have an agenda ... Why would you have an agenda? What possible reason would you have to be so "concerned" about gun control in the U.S.? Is it because the U.S. points out that gun control just increases crime and you don't want that message to be heard?
lazs
-
Shameless Rip&Paste from another thread...but it is rather interesting.
Assassinations and Attempts in U.S. Since 1865
Lincoln, Abraham (president of U.S.): Shot April 14, 1865, in Washington, DC, by John Wilkes Booth; died April 15.
Seward, William H. (secretary of state): Escaped assassination (though injured) April 14, 1865, in Washington, DC, by Lewis Powell (or Paine), accomplice of John Wilkes Booth.
Garfield, James A. (president of U.S.): Shot July 2, 1881, in Washington, DC, by Charles J. Guiteau; died Sept. 19.
McKinley, William (president of U.S.): Shot Sept. 6, 1901, in Buffalo by Leon Czolgosz; died Sept. 14.
Roosevelt, Theodore (ex-president of U.S.): Escaped assassination (though shot) Oct. 14, 1912, in Milwaukee while campaigning for president.
Cermak, Anton J. (mayor of Chicago): Shot Feb. 15, 1933, in Miami by Giuseppe Zangara, who attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt; Cermak died March 6.
Roosevelt, Franklin D. (president-elect of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Feb. 15, 1933, in Miami.
Long, Huey P. (U.S. senator from Louisiana): Shot Sept. 8, 1935, in Baton Rouge by Dr. Carl A. Weiss; died Sept. 10.
Truman, Harry S. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Nov. 1, 1950, in Washington, DC, as 2 Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to shoot their way into Blair House.
Kennedy, John F. (president of U.S.): Shot Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald; died same day. Injured was Gov. John B. Connally of Texas. Oswald was shot and killed two days later by Jack Ruby.
Malcolm X, also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (black activist): Shot and killed in a New York City auditorium, Feb. 21, 1965; his killer(s) were never positively identified.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot April 4, 1968, in Memphis by James Earl Ray; died same day.
Kennedy, Robert F. (U.S. senator from New York): Shot June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan; died June 6.
Wallace, George C. (governor of Alabama): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 15, 1972, at Laurel, Md., by Arthur Herman Bremer. Wallace paralyzed from waist down.
Ford, Gerald R. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination attempt Sept. 5, 1975, in Sacramento, Calif., by Lynette Alice (Squeaky) Fromme, who pointed but did not fire .45-caliber pistol. Escaped assassination attempt in San Francisco, Calif., Sept. 22, 1975, by Sara Jane Moore, who fired one shot from a .38-caliber pistol that was deflected.
Jordan, Vernon E., Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 29, 1980, in Fort Wayne, Ind.
Reagan, Ronald (president of U.S.): Shot in left lung in Washington by John W. Hinckley, Jr., on March 30, 1981; three others also wounded.
Lots of guys pointing there guns at right minded white guys here.
-
There are plenty of poor whites... what is it about the poor that makes you think they are such criminals?
History.
The town I live in has a fairly low ethnic minority population. Most of the crime comes from certain poor white neighbourhoods.
At one time, we had the worst car crime rate in Europe. It happened invariably in the poorer area, not the middle class neighbourhoods.
The FBI stats show that of the 14,000 homicides about 5,000 could be attributed to whites.
And 6,000 were not attributed to anyone, so it must have been blakcs, right? Or maybe, because they don't know who did it, it didn't happen at all.
Cool, can we ignore the murders in England and Wales where the suspect wasn't known?
In fact, as they don't provide a racial breakdown in the British statistics, can I do what you're doing and assume all the unkown race perpetrators were black? That would give Britain a 0 white murder rate.
even if a substantial portion of the unsolved homicides were attributed to whites... you would still be talking a difference of allmost nothing per capita between your country and ours.
No, you'd be talking about a 1.7 all race murder rate for Britain, a 3.1 white murder rate for the US.
Why do you missrepresent the figures in every case?
I'm not, Lazs, you are.
You can't simply say because the race of the murder is unkown, they must have been black.
As I said, the race of the suspects isn't known for the British figures at all, it would be equally silly to assume they're all black.
Of the known murders in the US, it's an almost 50:50 split between blacks and whites. You want to assign all the unkown figures to blacks as well.
I want to split the unkown figures along the same lines the known figures are.
Why would you have an agenda? What possible reason would you have to be so "concerned" about gun control in the U.S.?
None at all. I just like to but in when I see someone distorting the facts.
I've never started a gun thread, on this or any board.
-
nashwan... it is you who are distorting fact... you started the whole distortion by representing all homicides and all white homicides as gun homicides.
lets be realistic here nashwan... most of the unsolved murders are in ghetto areas. the police, right or wrong, don't put as much time into solving those cases and... the people there are much less inclined to talk to the poilice in any case..
it would be silly to figure that half those murders were by whites who can barely show their faces in those neighborhoods.
given that... I would say that no more than a third of the unsolved murders were by whites... that would make the per capita rate about the same or lower than in england... even with a worse case scenario as you point out you are only talking 1 more murder per hundred thousand...
hardly worth the wall-0-words you spent on it... certainly not worth the loss of freedom and increase in crime not having guns would cause...
sooo... what is your agenda if it is not as I have stated? what interest do you have in our gun control or lack thereof?
curval... do you think that presidential assainations or attempts would be thwarted if it were minutely more difficult fot the assasins to get their firearms?
lazs
-
Yes.
-
Nashwan .....Beetle....Pei.....
I have to assume you all are from across the pond. It just dawned on me what the problem is.. we have been argueing guns, which doesnt really matter, cause you cant do anything about it.
The real reason is simple, we as Americans have rights, not privileges..If you break 1 right in the constitution or bill of rights the rest will fall. The huge majority of Americans used to believe that, and that made us powerfull, and the gov. was afraid of us.Now a small majority do, and that is a problem when it comes to overthrowing the gov if need be.
It is a right and we will fight for it.
Europe on the other hand sees almost everything as a privilege.You said it your self. owning guns was a privilege,therefore europe has never really had a stake in true, fought and died for rights. You have never understood us and never will.
So far as Americans overthrowing the gov if needed, none of you have come close to proving it couldnt be done. That is because it isnt ingrained in you, it is not part of your heritage. Subjects, yes I was refurring to monarchs and know it has been a while since those days. But you are still subjects because almost everything is a privilege and little are rights.
Do you really think that all of the military would stay on the side of a dictator? How much damage do you think 100,000,000 people under arms would do ? Remember or motto is give me liberty or give me death,not , give me life no matter the cost, which europe is so endeard to. What were the odds we could beat england? So it is really a moot point.
I cant believe no one has figured out where the 33000 came from lol.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
There's something wrong there. The population of Scotland is around 5,050,000. 127 murders is 25 per million.
I was just quoting the Scottish Office figures (check out their website). Note that they quote their figures for the calendar year unlike the Home Office.
Originally posted by Nashwan
I believe the Chinese immigrants was in 2001/02.
According to the Home Office the 58 chinese deaths were in the total for 02/03: I don't know if this was the financial year or some other arbitrary accounting year but they had specific note saying the Chinese deaths and the Shipman deaths were included in that figure.
The 33K figure (if correct) probably inlcudes all death by misadventure and accident as well. I imagine like the US the highest contributor will be road deaths.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Nashwan .....Beetle....Pei.....
I have to assume you all are from across the pond. It just dawned on me what the problem is.. we have been argueing guns, which doesnt really matter, cause you cant do anything about it.
The real reason is simple, we as Americans have rights, not privileges..If you break 1 right in the constitution or bill of rights the rest will fall. The huge majority of Americans used to believe that, and that made us powerfull, and the gov. was afraid of us.Now a small majority do, and that is a problem when it comes to overthrowing the gov if need be.
It is a right and we will fight for it.
Europe on the other hand sees almost everything as a privilege.You said it your self. owning guns was a privilege,therefore europe has never really had a stake in true, fought and died for rights. You have never understood us and never will.
So far as Americans overthrowing the gov if needed, none of you have come close to proving it couldnt be done. That is because it isnt ingrained in you, it is not part of your heritage. Subjects, yes I was refurring to monarchs and know it has been a while since those days. But you are still subjects because almost everything is a privilege and little are rights.
Do you really think that all of the military would stay on the side of a dictator? How much damage do you think 100,000,000 people under arms would do ? Remember or motto is give me liberty or give me death,not , give me life no matter the cost, which europe is so endeard to. What were the odds we could beat england? So it is really a moot point.
I cant believe no one has figured out where the 33000 came from lol.
I would have disagree: I have plenty of rights. I can am free to assemble with my fellow citizens, say what I like, sleep with who I like etc. You seem to think we all still live in fuedal societies grabbing our forelocks whenever our "betters" go past. Whatever Hollywood might portray that is not the case. In fact the only significant difference between my country and yours in terms of rights is that of arms.
The Right to Bear Arms was useful back in 18th century for the US situation, the equivalent situation did not occur in the UK and so the right was never seen as necessary. In modern terms I see that right as an anachronism. We both live stable democratic societies.
I see know reason why a responsible citizen shold not own a gun, just like I see no reason why a responsible citizen may own a vehicle. Both may be abused in such a way as to break the law and endanger life and so I beleive certain restrictions should be met. Ultimately this is what happnes in both my country and yours: you have to register and someone does a background check. So the difference in practical terms is one of semantics mostly, though you are allowed to own certain categroies of guns that are banned in my own country (some of these I agree with and some I don't).
-
I was just quoting the Scottish Office figures (check out their website). Note that they quote their figures for the calendar year unlike the Home Office.
They're Scottish, they're too drunk to get the figures straight ;)
Seriously, on another part of their site they give what looks like the correct figure:
In 2002, there were 127 victims of the 125 homicide cases recorded by the police, 11 more victims than in 2001 and the highest annual total since 1996. This represented a rate of 25 victims per million population.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00290-02.asp
According to the Home Office the 58 chinese deaths were in the total for 02/03: I don't know if this was the financial year or some other arbitrary accounting year but they had specific note saying the Chinese deaths and the Shipman deaths were included in that figure.
Could be, I have difficulty keeping tack of years when they aren't a calender year, ie 02/03 - 03/04 etc.
Shipman also had two batches of deaths recorded, the first group he was accused of, plus a few more, then a load by the inquiry into his actions.
I see know reason why a responsible citizen shold not own a gun, just like I see no reason why a responsible citizen may own a vehicle. Both may be abused in such a way as to break the law and endanger life and so I beleive certain restrictions should be met. Ultimately this is what happnes in both my country and yours: you have to register and someone does a background check
That's what puzzles me as well. Americans are willing to accept registration of cars, licences to operate them in public etc, yet not the same for guns.
nashwan... it is you who are distorting fact... you started the whole distortion by representing all homicides and all white homicides as gun homicides.
I didn't at all. I don't like comparing just gun homicides, because people invariably claim "they are just killed with something else".
lets be realistic here nashwan... most of the unsolved murders are in ghetto areas. the police, right or wrong, don't put as much time into solving those cases and... the people there are much less inclined to talk to the poilice in any case..
And as I told you before, they aren't just unsolved murders. There are thousands of murders where the FBI just aren't given that level of information.
Which police department do you think gives better figures to the FBI, a major metropolitan police force, which likely has a high black opulation, or hicksville Kentucky, where one of the farmers shot his wife/sister/cousin (I only mean 1 murder, of course)
given that... I would say that no more than a third of the unsolved murders were by whites... that would make the per capita rate about the same or lower than in england.
No, Lazs, the FBI identifies almost 5,500 murder suspects as white.
If just that 5,500 were white, and all the unknowns and murders with no info at all provided were by blacks, just that 5,500 figure equates to 2.4 per 100,000, which is still well above Britain's all race 1.7.
And that's by assuming every single one of the 5,000 or so unknown murders was black.
sooo... what is your agenda if it is not as I have stated? what interest do you have in our gun control or lack thereof?
None what so ever. Why do you keep posting about the crime rate in Britain?
curval... do you think that presidential assainations or attempts would be thwarted if it were minutely more difficult fot the assasins to get their firearms?
Obviosuly not. All the black men who carried out those assasinations would have found some way.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Europe on the other hand sees almost everything as a privilege.You said it your self. owning guns was a privilege,therefore europe has never really had a stake in true, fought and died for rights. You have never understood us and never will.
I kinda resent that comment as an Irishman. We have fought and died for our rights and freedom, the right to self determination etc against Beetle and Nashwans predecessors. Inspired to some extent by America. We are not subjects. We always had an independant streak and were a constant pain in the British government's side. The French too it must be said overthrew their monarch.
But otherwise the sentiments are true. It was an American who summed up the difference for me.
In America you can do something unless someone says you can't. In Europe you can't do anything unless someone says you can.
I think that sums it up.
I think this argument can never be resolved. There is merit on both sides. Too little gun control is bad. Too much is bad. Guns are bad when the wrong people have them and they are misused.
-
Cpxxx....Ireland you just cant win....
I totally for got about Ireland, I was talking about Britian,France,Germany,Russia etc. I am sorry to say I dont know anything about Irelands goverment. So I just can win, Someone a while back got mad because I didnt captilize his country,heck I dont know how I type from 1 min. to next. lol.
-
Ah don't worry about it I was only half serious. We're so little everyone forgets about us all the time. ;) Only about the size of the state of Maine. But we were only the second country to get independance from Britain. You were first.
-
Sorry for referring back to this, but 99/100 criminals aren't rich. They are lucky to afford a knife. So they really wouldn't have the choice of 9mm or m16.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Cpxxx....Ireland you just cant win....
I totally for got about Ireland, I was talking about Britian,France,Germany,Russia etc. I am sorry to say I dont know anything about Irelands goverment. So I just can win, Someone a while back got mad because I didnt captilize his country,heck I dont know how I type from 1 min. to next. lol.
All these countries named have had major revolutions against authoritarian rule. Ultimately no country has slid into democracy without struggle, even if it has taken decades. In that respect neither the US nor Ireland are unique.
-
Well Demaw, it's becoming ever more clear to me that the only things you know about Europe are what you see on TV. I can tell from your somewhat lacklustre grammar and spelling that you don't do much reading.
As for citizens being able to repulse the US military, I don't think so. Just look at Iraq - much of their hardware was dated, but at least they had a trained army, and most of the male civilian population was armed. Compare that with the US population. How many of them are trained for military combat? You're talking about untrained citizens, many of whom would be overweight, many of whom would be over 60. If the Iraqi army couldn't save Saddam against incoming US forces, I have grave doubts about John and Jane Doe being able to do it.
It is clear you have never been to Europe, whereas I have lived in America. Did I suddenly feel a wave of "freedom" sweep over me when I set foot in your country? Erm... nope. Was there anything I could do there that I was not permitted to do here? Erm... can't think of anything. If anything, the US was more draconian in the workplace: We were expected to work a 40 hour work week starting at 8am! In Europe/Britain, we had been used to flexible working hours for years. In my last job, I used to turn up at 10am and work till about 6pm, taking an hour for lunch making a 35 hour work week. I think America has finally caught up on this now. But I was working in the US as recently as 1997, and as many of the other Brits observed, they didn't want us just to do the job, they wanted a chunk of our lives too. My line manager was gobsmacked when he instructed one of our guys to work the weekend only to be told it wasn't possible because the guy had other plans! :lol After a couple of months working that job in 1997 (which I enjoyed immensely, I have to say) I spent a couple of months working for a company near Antibes, France. There, they had lots of public holidays - and two hour lunches! The French were quite sneaky with their public holidays, which often occurred on a Thursday so they could bridge the gap - take Friday off as well and have a four day weekend. The practice was known as faire le pont, and once happened on two consecutive weekends!
One of the reasons why so few Americans hold passports is because they don't get enough holiday entitlement to go on any long trips. They're tied to their desks for 50 weeks of the year. A typical US employee would only get two weeks holiday (vacation) entitlement, whereas in Europe it's more normal to get five or six. As Aesop said, "Lean freedom is better than fat slavery". Oh yeah, and on the subject of travel/passports, don't even bother with that "we have everything we need right here" crap.
Just scratching my head wondering what I could do in the US but not here. Well guns etc., but I never needed to own one, and did not avail myself of the opportunity to shoot in America. To be perfectly honest, it never occurred to me to do so. I've done that since, with Lazs.
I've had the chance to work in the US on a permanent basis in recent years. Indeed, one of my close friends who I met through work in the 80s, relocated there and has a green card, and currently lives and works in Fort Smith, AR. But I could never come to terms with the somewhat pitiful vacation allowance. The handcuffs may be made of gold, but they're still handcuffs.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
. Indeed, one of my close friends who I met through work in the 80s, relocated there and has a green card, and currently lives and works in Fort Smith, AR. [/B]
rofl Now there is a place that could certainly perk your interest in training for the use of firearms. The OK coral , Arkansas style. :D
-
well... you guys don't think that Americans or anyone could revolt against an unjust government so maybe we should take your advice that you use against criminals and.... just give up... victimhood is not so bad? Hide under the bed while the government steals your country like you hide as the bgurglars steal your belongings?
I disagree. we aren't some tinmy little landscaped island of the kings land here. The government can't be everywhere and can't stop thousands of small uprisings with an army that may or mayu not be loyal.
nashwan... I say that if about half the murder victims are black or other and the rest white then... according to the way they are murdered, by race...then at best... 7000 whites commit murder but... the blacks and "other" kill about 15% of the unknown whites where the whites only kill about 7% of the blacks...
lets just say that there are 6000 whites committing murder... compared to your 1000... but... you have 1/6 the population... even at your best years you have 750 or what, 4500? seems your best years equal about one less murder per 100,000 and your worst are about the same as our white murder rate. you are subjects for nothing. except that burglars feel free to rob you while you shiver under the bed and you get to pray your government never goes bad.
I will concede that you have a very poor record for catching and incarcerating crooks so that might explain why you have so many and I will concede that in America allmost all assasins and serial killers are white but.... most serial killers in America don't use guns.
So... getting rid of guns doesn't significantly reduce murder (yours isn't reduced since 96 and it isn't significantly less than ours) and getting rid of guns increases personal crime whereas increased concealled carry use decreases our crime.
Your crime rate was going down before 96 and now it is going up.
The trend in America is for more concealled carry... not less. It is working despite all the "common sense wisdom" of those who claimed it would cause a bloodbath at every traffic light. The future looks bright... people aren't buying into the suing of gun manufacturers or any other draconian measures to disarm us... the worse things get the more people in America want guns not less. Terrorists... gangs... carjackings... rape.. they cause people to buy guns not shun them.
but... even if our homicide rate with firearms or one certain type of firearm were quadrupled.... I would still demand my right to exercise my second ammendment rights as a free man.
pei... while what you say sounds reasonable.... it is wrong. The type of weapon is not important... how it is stored is a matter of individual choice... regestration is worthless. I would however restrict gun sales to minors without parents consent and to the insane... I would give a mass murderers weapon back to him tho (if not proven insane) when he was released from prison.
lazs
-
lets just say that there are 6000 whites committing murder... compared to your 1000.
It helps if you use the right statistics.
It's 7,000 in the US, 853 total murders in England and Wales.
That's not a white figure, that's the total.
As an example, London has a 30% ethnic minority population, London's murder rate is over 3 per 100,000, without London the rest of England and Wales averages about 1.4
even at your best years you have 750 or what, 4500?
4500 what? Murders? Never, ever been anywhere near that. Not in modern times anyway. (ie last 150 years or so)
seems your best years equal about one less murder per 100,000 and your worst are about the same as our white murder rate.
No, for our all race murder rate to equal your white murder rate we'd need 1550 murders in a year, it's never ever been anywhere near that.
And like all your comparisons, you now want to compare the worst year you can find for us, the best year you can find for the US.
except that burglars feel free to rob you while you shiver under the bed and you get to pray your government never goes bad.
My government still has to put me in front of a court if they want to lock me up, your's now has the power to detain you indefinately without trial.
I'd say that means I have more freedom than you. I am still subject to due process of law, you are subject to detention without trial or even charge.
Your crime rate was going down before 96 and now it is going up.
Sorry Lazs, like almost every other statistic you have come up with, you're wrong.
-
Hmm... I heard that there were 50 million people in the the UK.. that would be abouit a sixth of our population. if you have 750 murders per year... not the highest but the lowest figure that would be 4500 for here... at your highest years you are at 1000 or, 6 times that would be 6000... that is about the same as our highest and lowest years of white murder rates..
You use london as being 30% minority butr isn't it only about 5% black? even so... my town is 67% minority it is not wven worth compar4ing your whitebread country to ours.
I don't know that my government could arrest me and detain me without trial or charge but I do know that I am free to defend myself and my home and the criminals know it .
face it... you are subjects and victims and it is for nothing.
I would like to see the figures but I hafve heard that crime rates were going down before the 96 gun ban but are going up now... most anti gun nuts claim that it is because the government changed the way crime was reported so that they could... look worse?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hmm... I heard that there were 50 million people in the the UK..
You heard wrong.
-
that would be abouit a sixth of our population.
You want to exclude the murders committed by blacks. By my reckoning, that means you should exclude the blacks from your population figures as well.
The white population of the US is 225,000,000 approx.
There are 50 million people in England and Wales.
That means your white population is 4.5 times our total population.
You use london as being 30% minority butr isn't it only about 5% black?
No, it's a lot more than that.
I don't know that my government could arrest me and detain me without trial or charge
Look up Jose Padilla. The government says he is a terrorist who was plotting to plant a dirty bomb.
He's a US citizen, he's been detained for over 2 years without trial or charge. He was only granted access to a lawyer after nearly 2 years in custody.
He's still in custody, still not charged, and trying yet again to get the supreme court to order his release. They rejected it on technical grounds last time.
You might call that a free country, I don't.
In the UK, a suspected terrorist can be held without charge for 48 hours. He cannot be denied access to a lawyer after this time. A court can order detention for a futher 5 days, and hen another 7. After the end of 2 weeks he must be charged or released.
The US government position is that they have the power to detain any US citizen indefinately. After more than 2 years, the courts have yet to tell them they can't.
face it... you are subjects
Subjects? I can't be detained unless the government have enough evidence to charge me with a serious crime. You can be detained on the say so of your president.
Who's the subject, exactly?
I would like to see the figures but I hafve heard that crime rates were going down before the 96 gun ban but are going up now.
No doubt. Toad once heard that murders were not recorded in the UK unless someone was convicted, and that in multiple murders only 1 was recorded. That wasn't true either.
There is a lot of rubbish put out as fact by both sides of the gun debate in America.
most anti gun nuts claim that it is because the government changed the way crime was reported so that they could... look worse?
Whatever, it was done. Look at UK crime figures and you will see a very large jump in one year, a break in the graph.
Try reading the British Crime Survey to get a more accurate picture:
http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/homeoffice/s?rds.hosb1004pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=%5Bhttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf%5D
-
My dear Beetle...
I admit my grammer and spelling are at times, lacklustre. Maybe most of the time. I admit I dont know how to type/ or am just learning. Since I am trying to use my hands in the correct manner,I make many mistakes in all areas of typing.It can be very annoying to start a sentence with a capital letter, only to find out after the sentence is finished, that the first letter is small and all the other letters are caps.
After working all day, and seeing how many other people misspell etc., I decided I did not want to take time ,fixing the messed up and turned around letters, or look up one of the rare words I dont know how to spell. Tomarrow I have to begin building a set of free hanging semi-circular stairs in a 2.9million dollar home I am building for a client. I might have a little trouble starting, as I have been told ,I dont know how to comprehend what I read. I would be greatfull if you would tell me how to begin the mathematical computations for said stairs.Sure be a help,thanks.
-
What? Somebody missing the target again?
(sorry, didn't read the thread, just the title)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What? Somebody missing the target again?
(sorry, didn't read the thread, just the title)
It more like a collective inability to remain on topic.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The US government position is that they have the power to detain any US citizen indefinately. After more than 2 years, the courts have yet to tell them they can't.
Subjects? I can't be detained unless the government have enough evidence to charge me with a serious crime. You can be detained on the say so of your president.
Who's the subject, exactly?
:eek: They're not going to like this! :lol
-
Originally posted by Pei
It more like a collective inability to remain on topic.
You mean not to change the subject. ;)
-
Yea England Yea????????
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=552313
You want this kinda crap for the U.S.???????
I don't think SO! Investigated ??? WHY???
You allow this???????????
Oh wait you can't stop it...............
SORRY :(
-
Well Wrag, I read of a case in the US in which a burglar broke into a property through the skylight. Apparently he injured himself in his burglary attempt, and successfully sued the property owner for having a faulty skylight. :lol
-
Originally posted by wrag
Yea England Yea????????
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=552313
You want this kinda crap for the U.S.???????
I don't think SO! Investigated ??? WHY???
You allow this???????????
Oh wait you can't stop it...............
SORRY :(
Same thing can happened in US. Everything depends on jury. You might be a hero or they can throw you in jail.
I hope this act will pass. Currently criminals have too many rights. Just like beetle said, when criminal gets hurt, he can sue burglarized place and win. That is pure BS....
-
so... the population of england and whales IS 52 million or... one sixth of ours even if you leave out the 6 or 7 thousand blacks who commit allmost 2 thirds of all the homicides... guns or no.. no matter what... you are talking maybe none to 1 or 2 more murders per 100,000 in the U.S than in england and whales (thought they were all the same).
Read yur home office report... seems that reported crime was indeed going down in the years before your government decided you couldn't be trusted with guns... rather dramaticaly too... then after the 96 gun ban it started to go up again.
even on a tiny little island you can't make it work... even with no borders and no place to run your murders are close4 to ours.
jose padilla.... used BBC as a source... this is a very bad man.. violent felony record as long as your arm including shootings. terrorist ties with al queda. This is one dog that needs to be put down... but... He should be charged IMO... still... since this scumbag is the only example of an "American citizen" being held withoput charges.... I am not too worried. Apparently the army of watchdog lawyers and lefties arent either since they seem to be ignoring this.
What makes you subjects in my eyes is the fact that your government takes away your right to defend against them and other subjects.
And for what? you have no dramatic decrease in homicides nor do you have a decrease in crime... you have burglars robbing you while you cower under the covers 50% of the time.
If all guns were illiminated in the U.S. there is no way that murders would go down by the number of firearms murders... I doubt it would go down at all. I don't want to get into a knife fight in any case. even if they went down a fes thousand a year ... a portion of 1 per 100.000... how would that be worth the 2-3 million crimes that are stopped by firearms every year? if even one percent of those thwarted crimes would have ended in murder... we would see an increase in murder of 20-30 thousand murders a year... that is with just one percent.
states that enact right to carry laws show a decrease in both homicides and violent crime.
If you had right to carry laws I bet your crime rate would drop too. I bet murders would be down too. Just like here, I bet no one with a concealed carry permit would be convicted of murder with a firearm.
millions of Americans have permits and they prevent crime not cause it... they carry handuns concealled. what is the reason to stop this practice? not enough crime? There is no logical reason.
The U.S will allways have one or two more murders per hundred thousand than the subjects of the UK... guns have nothing to do with it or... IMO and the opinion of most... guns cause the rate to be lower than it would be without em.
you were conned... you gave up your human rights for nothing.
lazs
-
Wow...gun ownership is a "human right".
Odd how some people will argue up and down that education and health benefits are not human rights, but gun ownership is.
I guess it is all just a matter of priorities.
Curious though lazs...how many times have you personally used a gun to protect yourself?
-
being able to defend yourself from those who would do you harm is a human right. In the past it was the ability to carry swords... now it is the ability to carry own firearms... who knows what it will be in the future.
oh... as for personally? I would just as soon not say. Lets just say that I would hope that it never occurs in the future. There is one record of me stopping a burglar in fairly recent times. Probly coulda done it without the gun but who knows? It is habit at this point and a lack of joyful ignorance that causes me to feel more secure with firearms thanh without. In the "old days" I knew too many people that were sociopaths to ever think the world is better off not being able to defend against them. I also believe that if they thought most of us were unarmed they would be a lot more violent and commit a lot more crime.
But... in the end... I enjoy guns so it is a moot point. They are old friends... extremely dependable and well made tools... some are history and some are art and some are just tools or sources of plinking and target shooting entertainment. working on them and reloading the ammo is as fun to me as working on Hot Rods.
lazs
-
Please stick to one argument then. Is your ability to carry guns a human right (visa vis self defense) or is it a human right to own guns to have fun with?
-
also... education and health benifiets are not human rights. they are the oppossite. Forcing one person to pay for another is not a human right.
Firearms on the other hand... you do not pay for me to have firearms. No one is asking that you buy anyone a gun (police and military excepted) to defend themselves. We are simply asking for the right to do so.
If you are talking about passing laws that would prohibit education or healthcare then you have a point... education does become a human right when it is forbiden such as it was forbiden to slaves in the U.S.
clear?
lazs
-
I answered the question... it is a human ritght to be able to defend yourself. Having "fun with guns" is a side benifiet. Simply being a human right does not preclude people enjoying that right.
lazs
-
From William Blackstone
BUT, with regard to the rise and original of our present civil prohibitions, it will be found that all forest and game laws were introduced into Europe at the same time, and by the same policy, as gave birth to the feudal system; when those swarms of barbarians issued from their northern hive, and laid the foundation of most of the present kingdoms of Europe, on the ruins of the western empire.
For when a conquering general came to settle the economy of a vanquished country, and to part it out among his soldiers or feudatories, who were to render him military service for such donations; it behoved him, in order to secure his new acquisitions, to keep the rustici or natives of the country, and all who were not his military tenants, in as low a condition as possibel, and especially to prohibit them the use of arms.
Nothing could do this more effectually than a prohibition of hunting and sporting: and therefore it was the policy of the conqueror to reserve this right to himself, and such on whom he should bestow it; which were only his capital feudatories, or greater barons.
And accordingly we find, in the feudal constitutions,15 one and the same law prohibiting the rustici in general from carrying arms, and also proscribing the use of nets, snares, or other engines for destroying the game. This exclusive privilege well suited the martial genius of the conquering troops, who delighted in a sport16 which in its pursuit and slaughter bore some resemblance to war.
Vita omnis, (says Caesar, speaking of the ancient Germans) in venationibus atque in studiis rei militaris consistit.17 And Tacitus in like manner observes, that quotiens bella non ineunt, multum venatibus, plus per otium transigunt.18
And indeed, like some of their modern successors, they had no other amusement to entertain their vacant hours; they despising all arts as esseminate, and having no other learning, that was couched in such rude ditties, as were sung at the solemn carousals which succeeded these ancient huntings.
And it is remarkable that, in those nations where the feudal policy remains the most uncorrupted, the forest or game laws continue in their highest rigor. In France all game is properly the king's; and in some parts of Germany it is death for a peasant to be found hunting in the woods of the nobility.19
Now tell me Curval about the tradition of hunting and use of arms on Bermuda. Not gunrunning; the USE of arms for subsistence, sport and pleasure.
Some countries have it, some don't. We do.
-
Originally posted by Wonko_the_Sane
I based my assesment of the M16 based solely on reliability. If a weapon is not reliable it is a POS. Just like the M9 9mm. slide jams ALOT..stovepipes ALOT.
I'll never own a Beretta, i was forced to carry this "firearm" (.40 Cougar) and had it stovepipe on the range. Sorry, but I prefer my HK USP .45.
Karaya
Yes, the M16 needs to be kept clean.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You still need a bullet in the gun. You still need a condition were that weapon happens to be pointed at somone OR you have to have a condition were somone is not properly trained on firearm safety.
People who dont know how to drive kill people every day on the highway and its never the cars fault.
That would be a Cartridge sir. :p
Karaya
-
I would rather have the gun and NOT need it, then to not have the gun and NEED IT.
Karaya
-
Let me just say this, it is not myself or any Europeans that are attempting to deprive Americans of their right to bear arms. That gentlemen is being done by your fellow Americans.
So, all this talk of Europeans and Bermudians being "subjects" etc is all a backlash against what is really efforts being made within your OWN country to take them away from you.
Any talk of feudalism and "King's subjects" is just nonesense.
You guys seem to think that I am somehow less free than you are, but as I have pointed out in the past YOU guys are mere subjects to the whims of your taxation departments than I ever am with respect to issues relating to guns.
So we have the Big 3 reasons for gun ownership in the United States:
1. Self protection
2. Hunting
3. Fun
In Bermuda we have never had any hunting in my lifetime, but back in the day. when your country was still in "diapers" guns were used extensively to hunt wild hogs and birds in order to feed the colonists.
Now there is none. No hogs, no hunting. There just isn't any room. But Europeans do alot of hunting according to recent articles posted by Ripsnort. One article even discussed the gun culture of Europe as being as pervasive as the US. So, I don't understand why Euros have "given up" anything in this regard.
Bermuda has a very rich history with respect to guns. Hell, our tiny little island was fighting the Spanish and French in the Carribean before you guys even had a country.
Self protection....my 9-iron has worked well so far. Infact I've never had cause to use it.
Fun...well, I could join the gun club, but I have better things to do.
So, tell me again. Why am I more of a subject than you? Don't post things written in Olde English to back-up what you say either. Those days are long gone.
-
I feel that explains the viewpoints pretty well.
We see a lot of the English and/or Euros saying "I've never seen or felt the need for a gun". I think that has its roots in history. They just didn't have the same culture with respect to firearms that the US did. Thus, they see no need and simply can't understand our point of view.
And what are those roots? Simply this:
it behoved him, in order to secure his new acquisitions, to keep the rustici or natives of the country, and all who were not his military tenants, in as low a condition as possibel, and especially to prohibit them the use of arms
[/b]
Right after the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech (which most Euros don't understand either) our founders made sure the Government wasn't going to be allowed to do THAT again.
-
So?
Is that why I am more of a subject than you are?
Ironically if I were to produce a gun in public here and got myself arrested, I would spend about the same time in jail as you would if you didn't pay Uncle Sam his taxes.
So...can we just agree that we are BOTH just subjects?
-
I think you have me confused with Laz. I'm not the one tossing "subject" around.
I'm just saying that all this non-US "I've never felt the need for a gun" stuff seems to have its roots in their history. They were never allowed to have them really. Certainly not in the way that we had them and they became ingrained in our way of life.
It's almost as if they were telling James Irwin or David Scott that they never felt the need for a Lunar Rover so they don't see why Irwin or Scott would have ever needed one either.
You're attempt to link taxes, guns and punishment for violating laws leaves me a bit confused. Don't all governments punish their citizens for violating laws? Does it matter which laws? Not really. Only the degree of punishment varies.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're attempt to link taxes, guns and punishment for violating laws leaves me a bit confused. Don't all governments punish their citizens for violating laws? Does it matter which laws? Not really. Only the degree of punishment varies.
Correct. This makes all of us subjects of our governments. Yes, this is more for lazs' benefit than yours...he is the one who seems to think his freedom is somehow greater than mine. He is wrong.
...and I am just as confused as you are with respect to your lunar rover anaology.
-
OK, maybe it's like trying to explain the need for a fly rod to a guy that comes from a culture in the mid-Sahara. They just don't grasp the concept of sport fishing.
-
I suspect what Laz is driving at is that should you loyal Bermudan subjects ever decide your government has gone too far you'll have to overthrow them using your nine irons.
We, otoh, will have something with a bit more range and "punch" available thanks to the foresight of our Founders.
And before someone throws in the inevitable "deer rifles against F-16's", I'd point out that our "citizen soldier" ethic makes it much more likely that the guys with the F-16's will stand with those who believe the Founders were correct than with a corrupted government that no longer honors the Constitution the troops are sworn to defend. There's that other difference...... our troops swear to defend the Constitution, an idea really, rather than a King or any other person.
-
That anology doesn't fit with me.
I have pointed out that we have had a culture which included guns.
My island has NEVER been invaded or subjugated.
Our government made a consious decision to try and eradicate guns from this island. I agree with that decision.
-
Originally posted by Curval
That anology doesn't fit with me.
I have pointed out that we have had a culture which included guns.
My island has NEVER been invaded or subjugated.
Our government made a consious decision to try and eradicate guns from this island. I agree with that decision.
Really????
HMMMMMMMMMM........... SOOOOOO....
Hastings never happened? The Vikings/Norse never showed up? Rome didn't arrive there either???? The Norman's never fought the Saxon's?
Oops Bermuda :)
So whatever happened to the original inhabitants of that island? The one's that were there pre Columbus?
Ugh my speeling is reelly bad today.
-
Wrag, I don't live in England. There were some wild hogs and some birds here before the British. No people. A Portugese sailor dropped by to give a name to what were known as The Devil's Isles (Juan de Bermudez) but he didn't stick around.
Interesting examples though....and all prior to the advent of guns.
If my memory is correct England hasn't been invaded since 1066. Many have tried though...notably France, Spain and Germany. But, despite being subjects of rulers that forbade them the right to bear arms they sure managed to use 'em effectively to protect their country.
Again....no-one from Europe or Bermuda is trying to take your guns away. Americans are doing that.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Our government made a consious decision to try and eradicate guns from this island. I agree with that decision.
Well, YAH.
You guys don't have anything to hunt and you're so regulated that just going out plinking is basically impossible. Your "gun club rules" are most likely so anal that it isn't worth the effort to join.
So, again, I can easily understand why you guys think you don't need guns. Just like you wouldn't need a fly rod in the desert.
In that way, you're just like the Euros. And unlike us.
-
Hmmm, your arguments have taken a turn for the "lazs".
Us and them? I thought we had reached agreement that we were both "subjects" of our respective governments?
Oh dear.
-
Note that YOU'RE the one floating the red herring about:
no-one from Europe or Bermuda is trying to take your guns away. Americans are doing that
I haven't seen Laz saying that. I certainly haven't said that.
What IS being said is that the Euros (and the Bermudan) obviously have a vastly different view of the "need" for firearms. I've said I think that's understandable given the difference in the history with respect to the common man and arms AND the difference in the history of the various firearms sports.
So while we read the erudite discussions of why they feel "no need", it just doesn't apply to us. We DO feel a need; we USE guns recreationally. Always have and hopefully always will.
If that "need" doesn't resonate with Euros/Bermudans....... that doesn't bother me a bit.
Just like it doesn't bother me that desert nomadic tribes see no need for a good fly rod. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
What IS being said is that the Euros (and the Bermudan) obviously have a vastly different view of the "need" for firearms. I've said I think that's understandable given the difference in the history with respect to the common man and arms AND the difference in the history of the various firearms sports.
Okay...I think you are beginning to act like that fly you described in a thread a while ago...remember? "bzzzzzzzzzz..."twack...bzzzzz thwack".
I have repeatedly mentioned the fact that guns were legal up until 1971 when our governor, his aide de camp and his dogs were all shot dead.
We, as a people, through our government made the decision to get rid of guns after this incident happened. We did this with great success.
In our case it has nothing to do with nomadic tribe anologies. We know guns. My father had two rifles in his closet, right up until 1971. He won one of them in a shooting competition. He was a pretty good shot as I understand it.
-
Well, one of us is acting like that fly perhaps.
Yes, your guns were legal. As you admit, however, Bermuda has nothing to hunt. You have no "big game" like deer or elk. You have no huntable populations of gamebirds.
Now there is none. No hogs, no hunting. There just isn't any room.
It's too crowded to just go shoot rifles plinking at cans and rocks.
Now, if you want to equate that history with ours, our "frontier heritage" that essentially continues today in the actions of millions of American hunters and sportsmen, go ahead.
-
Okay...now it is hunting that separates us from "them/you".
See, I jumped into this thread in response to lazs yammering on about "subjects" etc and now I face the wrath of Toad simply because we don't have big game hunting. Can you see how this might be a bit frustrating? It is like having goal-posts moved constantly. Lazs has never mentioned hunting as one of "his" prime reasons for gun ownership...his are more along the lines of the plinking of cans.
So....fine. I'm not going to try and compare this island to the US in terms of hunting. I can't.
But, I will speak up when I am referred to as less free simply because I cannot sit at home and clean my guns at night in anticipation of shooting trash at a dumpster the next day.
-
No, you miss my point. I think it is our divergent national histories that separate our views on guns.
And obviously you realize there is no "wrath of Toad" involved. I'm just pointing out my view of this divergence in opinion.
As to the difference between Laz and I, it's simply a matter of priorities. I recognize Laz' "self defence" priority as valid. It is his constitutionally guaranteed right. I'm sure he recognizes my "hunting" priorty in the same way. I'm also sure that if he chose to go hunting, he'd view that right as "all of a piece" with his "self defense" right. I would view my "self defence" rights as all part of the 2nd as well, right along with my hunting rights.
Less free? Well, unless you are a licenced member of a gun clubs.
you can't even HAVE a gun for any reason, right? Not even a BB gun?
From that I'd have to say you aren't as free to have a gun as we are. Now that may not be important to you at all.
Which returns us once again to the beginning. Bzzzzzzzt.
There's a reason why Euros/Bermudans don't feel the "need" for a gun. I think it is based in history that continues to this day.
Just as some desert dwellers wouldn't feel any less "free" if their government prohibited fly rods.
-
"There's a reason why Euros/Bermudans don't feel the "need" for a gun. I think it is based in history that continues to this day."
bzzzzzzzzz...yes....bzzzzzzzz zzz and in our case it is because our governor got shot.
"thwack"
:)
-
Or maybe it's because your little island has no real opportunities for the masses to indulge in legitimate shooting sports and hasn't for a real long time.
Bzzzzzzzzzt. Thwack.
-
One hundred years after your Paradise became so desirable that they paved over the last of your golf courses and then banned your golf clubs.....
will you feel a "need" to golf? 100 years later?
;)
-
You mean all this
"For when a conquering general came to settle the economy of a vanquished country, and to part it out among his soldiers or feudatories, who were to render him military service for such donations; it behoved him, in order to secure his new acquisitions, to keep the rustici or natives of the country, and all who were not his military tenants, in as low a condition as possibel, and especially to prohibit them the use of arms. "
was just about us being less free to own guns and had nothing to do with being "less free" in a more general sense?
Methinks not.
Methinks that was a useful argument to use nearer the top of the page.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
One hundred years after your Paradise became so desirable that they paved over the last of your golf courses and then banned your golf clubs.....
will you feel a "need" to golf? 100 years later?
;)
lol...not touching that.
-
Originally posted by Curval
was just about us being less free to own guns and had nothing to do with being "less free" in a more general sense?
No, "all that" was just to show that the history of the use of weapons and firearms in Europe is vastly different from the history of the use of weapons and firearms in the USA.
That bears directly on a perceived "need" or desire to own firearms.
In short, their tradition is most certainly not OUR tradition, and that changes peoples perceptions to this present day.
-
Great debate, honest very informative , I learned a lot about the other side,and a good bit from my side.
BEETLE....The store owner had been robbed by this same guy several times before thru the skylight. The owner booby trapped the skylight with a shotgun. The guy tried again and was wounded by the shotgun.
Here is the difference between europe and america. He was arrested, as the guy in wrags post was. The DA and media tried hard to throw the book at him ,but the jury said not guilty. That is the difference, most of our juries dont let the elities, get by with that. Yes he lost the civil case,thats sad,but not the other case.
-
Hmmmmmm.....
I basically said someting to the same affect earlier on in this thread???
It's cultural. There is no base for this discussion to work from. I truly believe Curval, Beet1e, etc. will have a major problem in understanding where many Americans' are starting from, and that we will have just as much trouble understanding their viewpoint and where they are starting from.
It's not that any of us lack intelligence. We lack the background, the living within the culture. IMHO.
So we are in affect talking apples and oranges. We see a genuine need where they see a major problem.
BTW your govenor...... did he do anything....
I mean the person that shot them, did that person perhaps believe in some way that they, the govenor and his aid, had wronged some one or something?
Not in any way trying to justify the shooting just curious.
-
Curvel gun rights.
I think we mean you are less free overall. Whatever the country,the goverment that gives you a freedom, can at anytime take it away.
Our founding fathers knew this and wanted to put America on a different path. They didnt want us to be subject to the goverment but equal . All the fancy words in the bill of rights or any document means nothing. They knew the only way to be equal was to own equal weapons as the goverment. Yes I know we dont own equal weapons now, but still are able to own some darn good ones, and therefore we have the numbers with some punch.
European countries can do nothing if the goverment decided to take a freedom from you. Whereas we, because of the foresight of our founding fathers , can do something about it. If we would win or not can be debated. But our goverment knows the bloodshed would be a harsh price to pay.Maybe even lose the country it self.
So yes we are more free than you are. You are still subject to your goverment. We are not.
And yes curvel europe is actively at this moment thying to take our guns away.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms
Thomas Jefferson,President and founding father.
So you are only as free as you goverment permits.
-
Mr. Toad, I thought you were a smart guy. But as of today, your title may have to revert to plain old Toad. Surely you, of all people, do not go along with that tired old justification of the 2nd amendment - the "just in case the government flips its lid". I'll say it one more time. I do not doubt that the US military is the most powerful military force in the world. Heck, enough people crow about it on this board on an almost daily basis. But almost in the same breath, they'll cite their need for guns to defy the government if push came to shove. And as I said last time, let's consider Iraq, which had a trained army, and many of the male civilians were armed. How many days did they survive against US forces? And if they could not survive, can you imagine a trailer park full of seniors with shaking hands and failing eyesight, grappling for the snub nose revolver to ward off trained US forces on the ground and in the air? Based on some of the things which were said later, I think you gave your BBS password to Lazs for the evening. I'd change it if I were you. ;)
And another thing - the whole ethos of America's gun ownership has now turned to game hunting. I realise that's a subject close to your heart, but it's got bugger all to do with the 2nd amendment. After all, how many of your cronies go game hunting with a handgun? I think if you look more closely, you might find that the big issue with people trying to take your guns away (fellow Americans) is handguns, as it is these guns which are the murder weapons of choice.
Curval - you are correct: Britain was last invaded in 1066.
Demaw - the word is government, not goverment. European countries can do nothing if the goverment decided to take a freedom from you. Whereas we, because of the foresight of our founding fathers , can do something about it. If we would win or not can be debated. But our goverment knows the bloodshed would be a harsh price to pay.Maybe even lose the country it self.
That's BS, and goes on to reveal how little you know about Europe. Have you ever left the US? Or are you too busy working those 50 hour weeks they have people work over there? If you want me to take what you said seriously, you'd have to quantify it by means of examples. If we have a government we don't like, we don't need to shoot them. We use the ballot box. I am hoping for that opportunity to arise next year.
But as for our government trying to spring something on us that we don't like and can do nothing about, you are completely wrong. And I CAN quantify that with a couple of examples. The Labour government, currently led by Tony Blair, has long been anti-motorist. They perceive cars as playthings of the rich. But times had changed in the 18 years they were out of office...
...so when they got back in, and tried to increase road fuel prices by 6% above the rate of inflation, there was a well documented fuel tax revolt in 2000. Fuel tankers were blockaded and filling stations ran dry. There was hardly any traffic on Britain's roads for 4 days. The government was forced onto its back foot, and the 6% "accelerator" policy was scrapped.
In the late 1980s, Margaret Thatcher tried to change the way in which people paid for local services - the infamous Poll Tax. It didn't affect me particularly, but less well off people with sizable families were badly hit. There were riots in the streets - most notably the Trafalgar Square riots. The government was forced to readdress its policy, and we now have "Council Tax" which was found to be more acceptable (though that might change).
So don't come that bollocks about us being subjects and not being able to rebel against the government, because we can and we have.
Now I'm going to have a nice day, doing what I want to do. Don't you have WORK to do? :D
-
Beet, I hate to jump in here, but there seems to be a flaw in your above statement. The members of the U.S. military , in all branchs, are U.S. citizens. They are not like Hitler`s puppets. Most are intelligent and as you said VERY well trained. In the scenario described do you think they would just jump in and fight against the citizens of their own country and turn their back on the very things that they have been taught to cherish all their life because the powers that be said so? I think not. I believe they would instead fight for what they believe in and have been trained to protect.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
So yes we are more free than you are. You are still subject to your goverment. We are not.
And yes curvel europe is actively at this moment thying to take our guns away.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms
Thomas Jefferson,President and founding father.
So you are only as free as you goverment permits.
lol....You are just as "subject" to your government as I am. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You get to have guns. Guess what? I pay no income taxes. None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. Butkus.
So, while you face jail time if you don't pay I have the freedom to spend my paychecks...all of it. Clearly I have more freedom in this regard than you. Do this make me more or less of a subject than you?
All countries have laws, and we are all subject to those laws as Toad and I have agreed upon above.
Take a real close look at your Homeland Security laws my friend. All those wonderful "rights" you have can be taken away without notice or recourse.
How is Europe trying to take away your guns? Please be very specific.
-
Originally posted by wrag
BTW your govenor...... did he do anything....
I mean the person that shot them, did that person perhaps believe in some way that they, the govenor and his aid, had wronged some one or something?
Not in any way trying to justify the shooting just curious.
No...he was just the governor and the guy who shot him was a nutcase. He was hanged for his actions.
-
Here is a little essay that may explain why many americans feel the way we do about guns.
http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Metal_and_Wood.html
It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.
I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.
Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.
Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.
See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.
Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.
The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.
My guns? They’re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?
The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.
Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!
Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.
They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their children’s children, through the generations.
Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."
Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.
Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.
Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?
They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.
Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.
Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.
Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.
Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.
We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease man’s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.
We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.
If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.
So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.
-
TPI...wonderful heartrendering patrotism in that article. But stop for a moment and think about...say....the British, who fought in the Second World War. Is their sacrifice somehow diminished because they used their weapons effectively during the conflict, returned home and then gave them back to the army? Were they just pawns fighting for the Monarch? Or were they protecting their homes and families against a possible invader? If you answer the former you insult every single Britsih soldier that fought in that war.
This Monarchy stuff that appears is just rhetoric. Rhetoric that Americans just seem to be unable to get enough of.
It is this stuff that makes guys like demaw1 post the nonesense he wrote just a few posts up.
-
this is silly... curval feels well armed with a 9 iron? curval old buddie... I could probly take it away from you bare handed as could a lot of folks... you are not at all well armed. Where you live is your shield... it is a resort... it is like comparing south central Los Angles to disneyland. Bermuda should not even be mentioned here. If a couple of royals were killed with said golf clubs would you, as a loyal subject, then condone your governments banning of golf clubs?
beetle claims that if the government ever flips out... well.... all is lost anyway.. we need to just roll over and take it... Very british view historically on how to deal with oppressive government....
he would be right if the U.S did that and the majority of the people.. a large majority... were behind what it was selling/forcing but... unjust govenment would not have even the full backing of it's own military... and armed citizenry could resist in thousands of places at once. even 25% of the population could fight and harrass the government to a standstill. They know it too. They have done the scenarios.
there is another point to firearms besides hunting and plinking and defence... there is collecting and history... just as flying rare planes and driving antique cars... shooting antique guns.
In the U.S. more tguns equal less crime.. that is all there is too it. the more gun control...
oh... and diodn't Scotland invade england sucessxfully in the 1300's and... the4 first thing the brits did when they finally won by overwhellming nuimbers was.... to disarm the Scots? Why would they do that? For the Scotts protection? Surely the benevolent british government didn't fear that their benifial Scottish policies would meet resistance?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mr. Toad, I thought you were a smart guy. But as of today, your title may have to revert to plain old Toad.
I've always been plain old Toad.
Did you miss this?
ToadAnd before someone throws in the inevitable "deer rifles against F-16's", I'd point out that our "citizen soldier" ethic makes it much more likely that the guys with the F-16's will stand with those who believe the Founders were correct than with a corrupted government that no longer honors the Constitution the troops are sworn to defend. There's that other difference...... our troops swear to defend the Constitution, an idea really, rather than a King or any other person.
Constitution, as in 2nd Amendment.
Your personal assumption that the 2nd has "bugger all" to do with game hunting is simply incorrect. In fact, I find your concept as laughable as the Euro concept of US Constitutional "free speech" which periodically runs through the O-Club. In short, it's another concept you simply never will grasp.
Handguns? Oh, it usually starts with handguns, but it never stops, does it? There in lies the relationship.
You know what the greatest thing is? It's that it doesn't matter one whit that you don't understand the 2nd. Just like it doesn't matter whether you'd vote for Kerry or Bush.
You're happy with your laws and I'm happy you're happy.
However, I'll fight to the end to prevent such laws from being implemented here. I'd be happy fighting those laws, even.
So enjoy your paradise. I sure like mine!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
this is silly... curval feels well armed with a 9 iron? curval old buddie... I could probly take it away from you bare handed as could a lot of folks... you are not at all well armed. Where you live is your shield... it is a resort... it is like comparing south central Los Angles to disneyland. Bermuda should not even be mentioned here. If a couple of royals were killed with said golf clubs would you, as a loyal subject, then condone your governments banning of golf clubs?
The point was that I don't NEED to be well armed.
As to the resort thing and the typical reponse of my island not being worth discussing, I find that amusing. I always know when I have made valid points because that is when the "you don't matter" stuff comes spewing out.
-
C'mon Curv.... Laz does have a point there. Bermuda by its island nature IS a different situation.
The total population is about 65,000. You've got high population density but a very small population.
-
No... the p[oint is that you do need to be well armed but that you are just too ignorant to know it (not stupid, ignorant). I hope the point is never proven to you. you have made a wise choice tho as to wher to live to hide from these harsh realities. Only Disneyland would have been a better choice.
lazs
-
Curval, I think you totally missed the point of that guy's essay. Also, I think you're reading something into it thats not there.
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
Curval, I think you totally missed the point of that guy's essay. Also, I think you're reading something into it thats not there.
LOL...actually I think the opposite. I think you are reading it as something to back up why guns are so great and useful in the US. But, it is so full of rhetoric that it is laughable and you guys swallow it up like good little fishies.
I mean the use of the idea of slavery is really funny. Funny because the only reason slavery dragged on as an institution after Great Britain declared it an outlaw and unethical practice and actually tried to destroy it was because the demand for SLAVES...real slaves, in the US.
Anyway...I'm done here. The insults have begun and I obviously should not have an opinion.
Curval OUT.
-
I think most people of other countries with strict gun bans know in their heart they are being duped and are lashing out at free people. It is the fox's "sour grapes" thing. Many are simply friegtened by guns and are trying to justify the destruction of fellow subjects rights for their own selfish reasons. Many have simply bought into the propoganda and belive anything their government tells em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think most people of other countries with strict gun bans know in their heart they are being duped and are lashing out at free people. It is the fox's "sour grapes" thing.
I think most people of other countries with strict gun bans never think about it and don't give a toss.
Jackal said The members of the U.S. military , in all branchs, are U.S. citizens. They are not like Hitler`s puppets. Most are intelligent and as you said VERY well trained. In the scenario described do you think they would just jump in and fight against the citizens of their own country and turn their back on the very things that they have been taught to cherish all their life because the powers that be said so? I think not. I believe they would instead fight for what they believe in and have been trained to protect.
I agree, but it's not me to whom you should be addressing this, but the folks who think they need a gun just in case the government flips its lid. It's an almost unthinkable scenario in the 21st century, and I cannot imagine US military forces annihilating the civilian population, for all the reasons you said. But your argument further weakens the position of those who cite gun ownership as a safeguard against a government that has "lost it", as they could surely seek protection from the military forces. But the scenario is so hypothetical that it's almost impossible to comment on it.
Mr. Toad - the above paragraph also answers your point.
-
Minutemen, Beet.
We are the military. The military is us. Band of Brothers, Citizen Soldiers, old Chap.
And I'm sure you don't give a toss. Just like nomadic desert tribesmen don't give a toss about flyrods. Perfectly understandable.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Minutemen, Beet.
We are the military. The military is us. Band of Brothers, Citizen Soldiers, old Chap.
And I'm sure you don't give a toss. Just like nomadic desert tribesmen don't give a toss about flyrods. Perfectly understandable.
Minutemen? Not just Small Men? Sounds like the American equivalent of Dad's Army.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/images/220/dadsarmy_1.jpg)
-
Yeah, Minutemen. The name goes way, way back.
The ruling government at the time first met them at places like Lexington and Concord. And that ruling government ending up surrendering to them at Yorktown while the "World Turned Upside Down".
:p
-
Originally posted by Toad
And I'm sure you don't give a toss. Just like nomadic desert tribesmen don't give a toss about flyrods. Perfectly understandable.
Does the fact that nomadic desert tribesmen do not own/do not need flyrods mean that they have "less freedom" than people who do? :p
-
Nope.
I should have adjusted the analogy.
Maybe "Nomadic tribesmen living by a desert trophy trout stream who's class, economic and governmental system never allowed the "lesser folk" an unhindered opportunity to fish, reserving it only for those of "the blood" and wealth and thus never allowed a culture of fishing to take hold in the general populace and later banned all flyrods which the people didn't miss since they didn't have a culture of fishing for the last 200 years but of course the general populace didn't give a toss by then because they never really knew or enjoyed fishing anyway."
Cya Beet!
-
Curval....dont need to be armed...
You are so right curval, you do not need to be armed, and the freedom you have is nice, no you dont have to pay taxes and I think that is great.
I will tell you why you are able to enjoy all this. Because we pay taxes to protect you.Because you live under the wing of America.Without us, how long do you think it would take castro to enrich cuba with your country. If America was anything like russia,germany,italy,france or so many other countries past and present, how long do you think it would take us to make your country our footstool. Go ahead enjoy your freedoms , keep believing that somehow your freedoms are magic , and it is your 9 iron that makes it so.
-
Well Toad, now I'm confused. I thought I had the answer - simple ownership of a flyrod represented "more freedom" than that enjoyed by people living in desert conditions where people don't need them.
I wonder how the eskimos feel about owning a trepan device to cut holes in the ice. Are they aware of the fact that they have more freedom than anyone else in the world, because they can own such a device, whose purpose is to allow them to make holes in the ice so they can go fishing? If they had internet access, they would probably post on this board to say how much freedom they have - because they have (and need) such a tool, whereas you and I do not, and don't give a toss about it anyway...
...after all, that's the argument now being used here about guns. American citizens are allowed ownership of certain weapons which the rest of the world may not have, and about which many of us couldn't give a fork. And the whole justification is that America has a strong game hunting tradition, just as the eskimos have a long held fishing tradition.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_3_112.gif)
-
Actually it's possible that it's not really about guns.
From another way of viewing this, it could be about fear.
Guns were all taken away in Bermuda because people feared a repeat of the govenor thing?
Guns were taken away in England because people feared a repeat of that Scottland thing? (hmmm is scotland or scottland correct???)
Here the fear thing has been tried, but not doing quite so well.
Also here the fear thing is possibly 2 or 3 fold.
1) For a time people here feared guns, some still do.
2) It has always been, kinda intended from the start, that our rulers have a healthy respect for us and our guns. (maybe not fear us but think about how we might react to some of their plans for us before the try em)
3) Fear that we will lose our guns and be defensless.
Anyways, fear is something almost everyone understands.
Like Laz, I too lived a less then stellar life prior to settling down and having a family. Some of the people I knew then would worry me now.
I've been shot at here and in Asia. Had a shotgun pointed at me by a drunk. Threatened with a bumper jack. A fast moving chain laid across my head. Was at a friends house right after a drive by his son apparently got started somehow. And while it has almost grown out, my right ear still has a scar and a gap in the cartlige where someone tried to bite it off. Hate puttin a phone on it still. Human bites don't heal well :(
I understand fear. And in every case I was not looking for trouble! It just seemed to find me. Quite goin to bars because of it.
Living in Bermuda do these things happen?
Have you ever faced someone trying to kill or maim you?
Watched as a really big guy got stabbed twice in the stomach bullying a little guy in a bar?
Sat with a friend while her son went through emergency surgery from being stabbed 6 times in the chest? Word was he didn't even know he was stabbed until some friends told him. Thought he was gonna fight some other highschool kid. The kid popped him in the chest several times real fast and he laugh thinkin the guy couldn't hit. He said the guy looked at him in shock and ran away.
There is more but the point is from where I sit ..... hmmmmm
A 90 pound female is equal to a 230 pound rapist if she is armed and willing to use it. Further if the rapist knows she will use it he will probably leave her alone or die.
If someone is thinking of doing something bad to someone in my area and they know anything about me they will avoid my house and the homes of my closest neighbors.
Fear is an interesting thing.
-
Wrag, I will respond to you, because it seems you want to discuss the issue with logic and reason unlike others who clearly need a lesson in history, geography and philosophy.
Sure there is some violence in Bermuda. Bad things can happen anywhere.
Have I ever witnessed it? Some. Most of the real violence that I have seen or been affected by, however, was committed in the United States. A friend of mine was beaten to death by a cab driver in Florida who tried to rob him, for example. Another had to have reconstructive surgery on his face after being suckor punched in a bar by a biker who didn't like the way my friend looked.
I do not, however, feel fear on a regular basis.
Do you?
You seem to fear everything...your government, your fellow citizens, and fear that you will lose your guns. Come to think of it...I am more FREE from fear than you will ever be based upon what you have written.
Fear is very interesting.
With all you seem to have to fear I am not surprised you arm yourself.
I guess I am lucky. Disneyland was mentioned earlier. Statistically I am actually in far greater danger of being shot, beaten up or robbed at that theme park than at home.
I've never had a gun pointed at me in anger. I have never pointed a gun at anyone in anger.
I pray that the same holds true for my children.
-
All I can say is thank god I live in Australia. You guys are nuts! If it isnt Politics its guns. None of you should have so much as a kids plastic cutlery set in your possession!
God Bless Australia and death by boomerang to all those who oppose her.
-
beetle.. you just have a different view of the thing than us... yu claim that if the nomad doesn't need a fly fiwshing rod then he is free wether his government bans them or not. He may not want one this week but he is not free if his government bans him from having one.
I would not use a, a trepan?... but I would not like someone telling me I would be arressted if i found one at an antique shop and put it over my mantel or just collected different types of em.. see the di8fference? people in the U.S. are free to not own guns.
and..Having the right to defend yourself is a human right. fortuantely my government agreed that this was so over 200 years ago.
dep[ending on where you live... in england you are highly unlikely ot very likely to be burglaraized... that is the same here but... in enland there is a 50 50 chance it will be a "hot" strongarm one... you will be home.. they will rob you while you cower under the covers thanks to your government. I do not want that for here.
I want strong gun laws for penalties for commiting crimes with guns but lax concealled carry laws... I want to know that if there are ten countrymen in the crowd that at least one of em will be armed and trained. I like it even better if that person is me.
Staying vigilant and armed against tyranny or agression is no more "fear" than putting on your seatbelt is "fear". Less hassle too IMO. Sunscreen and earplugs and safety glasses.... All "fear"? perhaps but sensible.
The real fear comes into play when the anti gun crowd says that they don't trust their neigbor to own a firearm... the same guy they ruib fenders with in 2 ton charriots at 80 mph on the freeway...or whose house allmost touches theirs?
The 9 iron sham (or baseball bat or whatever)is a pretty typical short sighted response from anti gun males who are in fairly decent shape and a little macho.. Truth is.. they leave out the weak gender and old and sick in their elite attitude... they also are naive in the fact that two or more agressors could make em eat their weapon of choice... in many cases... just one bad guy is more than a match for them and their makeshift weapon and they will do nothing but piss off the bad guy.
There is no way to tell how many lives are saved every year in the U.S. by firearms but they are used 2-3 million times to prevent crime... if only a fraction of a percent of that agression would have turned to homicide (accidntal or not) then they have far outweighed any percieved danger.
lazs
-
Beet, you just doing your typical dodge.
You don't need/use guns so you're fine with your country banning them.
Fine by me.
I definitely use guns and they are a major component in my favorite form of recreation. Further, my country's Constitution guarantees my right to have and use them.
Also fine by me.
It's not about the collecting of guns, the hunting with guns or the use of guns for personal defense (whether they are fired or not).
It's real simple. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not I have/own/use firearms. I make that choice.
You have no say in having/owning/using firearms; your government makes that choice for you.
You don't give a toss. Great! I know quite a few Englishmen who DO give a toss. Unfortunately they're in a minority now in the land that gave the world the Magna Carta.
Your line of reasoning basically is that if YOU don't have a personal use for an item, you're OK with the government banning it.
Kinda reminds me of Rev. Martin Niemoller's comments in 1945.
But I am happy that you're happy.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's real simple. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not I have/own/use firearms. I make that choice.
From what I have read most of the whining that goes on regarding guns is directed at your own people (let's call them DEMOCRATS) trying to do precisely that - deprive you of those rights.
Quoted by lazs in another thread:
"The .50 is banned here in California."
It isn't Beet1e or myself.
I am beginning to understand lazs and Wrag tho. They live in fear and therefore feel the need to arm themselves.
Fine by me, just please don't shoot anyone by accident or in a crossfire when I visit your beautiful, but obviously very dangerous, country.
Thanks much.
-
curval... is it "living in fear" to use your seatbelt every single time you enter a vehicle? I don't consider my chances of needing a seat belt (most of the time) any more likely than needing a gun. "fear" is maybe not the right word. Think of em in the same class as saftey glasses and seatbelts. And... political power.
lazs
-
Curv, are you being deliberately obtuse?
From my previous post:
Toad:
Note that YOU'RE the one floating the red herring about :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no-one from Europe or Bermuda is trying to take your guns away. Americans are doing that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen Laz saying that. I certainly haven't said that.
Visiting the country? Yes, we have more firearms death than Bermuda. However, most of those take place in areas which the average American avoids, let alone the Bermudan tourista.
We also have far, far more highway deaths than Bermuda.
Take those facts into account before you visit. It's a choice you make. ;)
-
dep[ending on where you live... in england you are highly unlikely ot very likely to be burglaraized... that is the same here but... in enland there is a 50 50 chance it will be a "hot" strongarm one
About 50% of attempted burglaries (burglary definitions in England and Wales include attempted burglary) are "hot". However, the figure for successful burglary where someone knows the burgular is there are 25%, which includes about 5% "burglary artifice" where the burgular tricks his way in by pretending to be a meter reader, workman etc.
The figures in the US aren't included by the FBI, but the FBI does give a figure of 13% of all "robberies" being in a person's home. There is simply a different definition at work, with the US classifying burglary where the criminal threatens and steals from the victim at home as "robberies", whilst the British classify them as burglaries.
Regarding Britain not having enough black people to committ crime, the figures aren't broken down for murder, but they are for robbery.
In Bristol city centre, 62% of all robberies are by blacks and asians, in Birmingham it's 86%, 86% in Lambeth, 86% on the London Underground.
44% of all robberies in England and Wales are committed in London, which has 14% of the population.
Regarding the figure of 5 burgulars killed by homeowners for every homeowner killed by a burgular, the FBI actually keeps statistics on justifiable homicides too.
There were 564 justifiable homicides in the US in 2002. Again these are in addition to the 16,000 murders.
The police were responsible for 339 of them, private citizens 225.
That's for all circumstances.
96 people were murdered during burglaries alone.
That looks like the origin of the 5 to 1 figure to me, although of course the real story is that 225 citizens justifiably killed their attackers in ALL circumstances, whilst 96 were murdered during a burgulary, well over 1,000 during robberies.
And that's just a fraction of the total killings, over 6,000 out of 16,000 not being counted.
-
I believe it is the LAW that requires a seatbeat, not fear. Despite this law many continue to be ticketed for not wearing them. How that fits into your anology...I'm not sure.
You and Wrag have given very adequate descriptions of your fear of your government and various other incidents, including drive-by shootings, stabbings and a plethora of other violent episodes so I understand the fear you feel. It is OKAY to feel this way. You are good enough, strong enough and brave enough to admit it.
WTG.:aok
-
Originally posted by Toad
Curv, are you being deliberately obtuse?
yes.
;)
-
All states except New Hampshire have seat belt use laws.
In most states these laws cover frontseat occupants only, although belt laws in 17 states and the District of Columbia cover all rear occupants too. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have primary enforcement of their belt laws, which means law enforcement officers can stop and give citations to motorists solely for not wearing them.
With secondary enforcement laws, officers may issue a citation only after stopping the vehicle for other traffic infractions.
"Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the state of New Hampshire .
:)
Choice. I think you're a fool if you drive without wearing a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet.
But hey...... if you choose to be a fool, it's not my job to be your nanny.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's real simple. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not I have/own/use firearms. I make that choice.
You have no say in having/owning/using firearms; your government makes that choice for you.
With regard to firearms, you are correct to a certain extent. As you know yourself, we DO have game hunting with guns in England, and I could buy/own the type of gun used by your English hunting cronies - if I were so inclined.
But firearms is only one parameter in the "freedom" equation. In your country, the minimum legal drinking age is 21. Here, it is 18. My government cannot make the choice on whether or not our folks in the 18-20 age group can enter a pub/bar/restaurant for a drink. They make that choice. 18-20yr olds in America have no say in whether they can drink at bars; your government makes that choice for them.
In Holland, one can still make purchases at "head shops" - those establishments which sell drugs paraphernalia such as bongs, freebasing kits, rolling papers etc. Your government banned headshops in 1981.
Now, I accept that you probably have no desire to shop at headshops, or miss them in your own country now that they're gone. But let's just consider what you said about this, which was: Your line of reasoning basically is that if YOU don't have a personal use for an item, you're OK with the government banning it.
You are not interested in shopping at headshops, and I am not interested in owning a gun. Seems balanced to me. Who's to say which form of "freedom" takes precedence over any other?
Deuce. :D
-
Nice lob.
The strawberries and cream is quite excellent this year.
-
curval... I agree with you that seatbelts should not be mandatory but...
Are you saying that if there were no law that you would not wear them? how bout a helmet on a motorcyle?
Isn't that "fear" driven? Is it fear or pragmatism? why is wearing a seatbelt any different than owning a gun for protection against agression so far as practicality is concerned? How bout a life jacket on a boat?
The analodgy is perfect. There should be no gun or seatbelt/helmet laws.... let each mans level of "fear" guide him... freedom.
lazs
-
LOL It's a cultural thing IMHO. That and a combination of the life one has led.
Yo Curval, I thank you sir for the compliment.
I've found when the name calling starts the name caller usually loses or is losing the argument.
Sadly the Dems seem to use this technique allot.
The drinking age is different in several states. Some allow drinking at 18 most don't.
Voting is another State set thing I think.
Age of consent is different in many states. 18 is general but some go as low as 14? Arkansas or Georgia I think.
Probably seems strange to someone in another country. States set some limits and the Feds set others.
CCW's are also State set.
You and Beet1e play kinda rough with your words LOL. Think you got Laz abit rilled.
Originally posted by Toad
"Curv, are you being deliberately obtuse?"
"yes."
I figured that LOL
Kinda was startin to look like neither of you was gonna give an inch AND you didn't want to no matter what we said.
LOL Trolling? OR ????????
I still think it's mainly a cultural thing. I also think that both Curval and Beet1e never intended that this discussion be won by anyone but themselves no matter what. And set out to do just that.
IMHO We are still talking apples to oranges.
-
Yep, Beet. There's a difference.
For example, if you smuggled in a Webley revolver, kept it in your car and got caught, what would be the punishment?
How would that compare to a US kid that got caught drinking under age and got a warning?
There sure is a difference.
-
Originally posted by Toad
For example, if you smuggled in a Webley revolver, kept it in your car and got caught, what would be the punishment?
I'm buggered if I know!
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_1_16.gif)
-
Blunkett confirms tough new gun penalties (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,869581,00.html)
Monday January 6, 2003
The home secretary, David Blunkett, today confirmed plans for a five-year minimum sentence for illegal possession and use of a firearm.
The provision for a mandatory minimum term will be included in forthcoming legislation, the Home Office said.
Let's see...... a kid in the states would get "probation" at most for being caught with illegal alcohol.
You'd go to the slammer for 5 years minimum.
Seems "balanced", eh?
-
whatever :)
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_1_14.gif)
Until tomorrow - toodle-pip! :cool:
-
Originally posted by wrag
LOL It's a cultural thing IMHO. That and a combination of the life one has led.
Of course it is cultural. At issue is the merits of those cultures.
:)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's see...... a kid in the states would get "probation" at most for being caught with illegal alcohol.
You'd go to the slammer for 5 years minimum.
Seems "balanced", eh?
Meanwhile, in Kansas City, the punishment meted out to old ladies who sound the car horn is a 50,000 volt shock from a taser.
Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=817&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20040820/ap_on_fe_st/tasered_grandmother
-
Originally posted by Curval
Of course it is cultural. At issue is the merits of those cultures.
:)
HUH???
The cultures don't really compare. They each have a very different base. Different climate, different slang, different daily conduct.
Merits? I disagree. To me we are not talking about such.
Are you saying the culture or the guns?
Again we are talking apples vs oranges.
The cultures have different base's. From my view point they can not truely be compared.
I keep seeing everyone trying to compare the results of these cultures and find myself thinking that such a process is terribly flawed.
The way you view life and how it is lived is somewhat different from the way I see life and how it is lived.
The items or things that have value to you are not the same as the items or things that have value to me. While we may each see some of the same things or items and respond with a value it will probably not be to the same degree.
The firearms issue is possibly, even probably, one of the major ones. But drugs, sex, age of voting, age of majority, and so many other things are seen somewhat differently due to differences in our cultures. Due to how and what we are each taught as we grow. By our parents and families as well as our educators and those around us.
So what has great merit to you could quite possibly be of no value to me, and the reverse is also true. I admit here and now that this last statement is probably extreme. But I intended it as an example.
I also think we are seeing just such a difference within this thread.
-
Wrag, I've lived in the UK for about 7 years, attending school, lived in the US for about 4, on and off attending school, and lived in Canada for nearly 12 years.
I think I have a pretty good view of the cultures in each of those countries.
Frankly we aren't really that far apart.
The exception comes with issues such as gun control, which is why we have HUGE 6 page threads going on every few months or so. Other than politics (and AH updates ;) ) we have a hard time finding stuff to argue about.
-
LOL
OK let me try another way.
To me this is a NO WIN situation for us all.
You seem throughly convinced in your viewpoint on firearms and I know you will not change the way I see the firearms issue.
I've come to believe that what either of us say regarding the issue is moot.
You believe the way you believe, in part, because that is what you wish to believe. I believe what I believe for the same reason.
To me everything in my life says firearms are essential to my freedom, liberty, and general welfare.
Your beliefs seem exactly the opposite.
We have both put forward many arguements that to us relate to our beliefs.
Part of the problem is, for each of us, we are unable to see the issue from within the cultural framework of the other person. We are unable to BE in the other persons mind and thus better understand ALL the things that occured which in the end created the belief held by the individual.
Question...
which is of greater importance to you, individual well being or the communities well being?
Would it better serve to create a reasonable answer if you graded it on a 50%/50% type scale?
Which is more important the general welfare of the community or the individual welfare of each member of that community?
-
After some schmuck beats the crap out of the Bemudan Governor with a 9 iron and Bermuda then confiscates and bans all golf clubs and playing of golf on the island, you and Curval should talk again.
-
Interesting Toad...and actually quite valid IF the governor was able to be killed with a 9-iron.
If you recall there were 3 lives lost in the actual killing of our governor. His aide-de-camp and his dog were also murdered..
I don't recall what kind of dog it was, but any dog I have ever owned would never have let a guy with a 9-iron get close enough to be able to kill me.
A gun is a different matter. It is deadly from significantly farther away than a 9-iron.
That said, Wrag:
(here we go again)
You have witnessed part of how I feel about guns in this thread. Frankly I never gave the issue much thought until I visited the gun-shop (or Sportsman shop) that was attached to the hotel at the Con. You see, I was going there with Puck, Swoop (a Brit) and Ripsnort to shoot.
I love shooting guns, although I am pretty awful with a handgun due to a lack of any training. I am pretty good with a rifle, and was pretty darn good with a GPMG (general purpose machine gun [British Army issue]).
While in line to shoot I witnessed 3 guys efforts to put their newly aquired rifles back into the boxes...they had taken them out and were attempting to leave the store carrying them. The manager had told them they couldn't leave until the rifles were back in their respective boxes.
It was hilarious to watch them try to do this.
But, it also gave me "pause" when upon leaving the range I had a look around the store. The sheer volume of guns, ammo and other assorted gun-regalia, availiable to anyone with enough cash in their pockets was, to me, astounding. Then I started to put that fact together with the sheer stupidity of people who are alive and walking around in any given country and I was concerned. Concerned because I spend more time in the US then anywhere else when I am outside the United States.
For the first time in my life I actually thought about guns as an issue in my life in that my family would be in a country that allows anyone and everyone with enough cash and a clean record the opportunity to own deadly weapons.
Now, people like yourself, lazs and Toad do not concern me one bit. You know guns, you are well trained with guns and follow all safety measures to insure they, and the people around them, do not get hurt.
Can the same be said for the rest of the gun owners in your country? I would say categorically NO, based upon the numbers of accidental killings due to negligence or just plain accidents.
I mentioned this in a thread a while back.
Since then I have been labelled "anti-gun" by people like yourself.
I have no right to tell you what to do in your country so I am not trying to tell you what is right or wrong for you.
For me, and for where I live, I strongly oppose the free availiabilty of everyone to own guns as you have in your country.
Since 1971 not a single child has been hurt by accidental discharge of weapons. Our gang-war that is apparently going on right now consists of two groups of guys yelling at each other and brandishing knives in an effort to appear "tough". About six months ago two groups interupted a football match after a big fight broke out and spilled onto the pitch. About 30 guys were involved. Despite the presence of all kinds of "weapons", incuding machetes, knives and baseball bats only 3 people were taken to hospital. One had been stabbed with an ice-pick and was the most serious case. He was discharged the next day.
If guns were readily availiable I wonder if that story would have had a different ending.
As to your questions below:
"which is of greater importance to you, individual well being or the communities well being?
Would it better serve to create a reasonable answer if you graded it on a 50%/50% type scale?
Which is more important the general welfare of the community or the individual welfare of each member of that community?"
This is a very philosophical argument and frankly somewhat of a loaded question. I'm sure you have arguments prepared for whatever answer I give.
Read what I wrote above and draw your own conclusions.
You seem to think that this difference of opinion with respect to guns is something of a fundemetal difference in our two cultures and that we can never see "eye to eye" because of it. Well, so what?
Toad is my squaddie, a good friend and a guy I have huge respect for. Arguing here about guns makes no difference to our "relationship". In fact during this discussion we were corresponding in our squad forum about a Track IR set that he has ordered paid for and had shipped to me. We didn't even bring up this thread or the issues surrounding it. No need. We like to argue and discuss, that is all.
Take a look at the "8 limey poofter thread" started by lazs. He and Beet1e have a kind of "love/hate" relationship on the boards, but they have not only met in real life but actually shot guns together when Beet1e visited him in California.
So, when you say "I've come to believe that what either of us say regarding the issue is moot" you are right and wrong at the same time. Minds are rarely changed over a BBS discussion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss and throw the occasional jab in.
Example:
You also said "To me everything in my life says firearms are essential to my freedom, liberty, and general welfare."
To this I would reply:
I'm not surprised based on all of the violence you have witnessed in your life.
:p
-
Curv, back in my gun dealer days, I had trouble getting some of the guns back in the boxes. There's some pretty creative and complex packaging out there to keep the guns from moving and rubbing the finish while in the box. Don't laugh until you've tried it is all I'm saying.
Can the same be said for the rest of the gun owners in your country? I would say categorically NO, based upon the numbers of accidental killings due to negligence or just plain accidents.
I'd say "no" as well. But then have you checked US stats on automobile deaths due to negligence? We test, license and register drivers and vehicles too. Point being you'll always have dolts. Heck, read some of the accident reports on Private Pilots. Supposedly they're well-trained tested and licensed.
Oh, yeah...... one other thing:
Man Killed With Golf Club In Kent (http://www.komotv.com/news/mnewsaction.asp?ID=32277)
African American Girl, 14, Accidently Killed With Golf Club (http://www.kccall.com/News/2003/0613/Front_Page/052.html)
Murder of Martha Moxley (http://crimeandjustice.i8.com/photo2.html)
Golf while you still can. ;)
-
curval... thank you rfor considering me and toad in your elitist socialist list of people that you would allow to own guns... but...
no thanks... I trust my neighbors. You talk of all the "stupid" people running around and it gives me shivers... not that they are are but that there are elitists like you running around who feel that only the "right" people should have the right to defend themselves.
I have beenm around gun owners all my life and except for the criminal ones... I have no wish to feel elite over any of em... I think that if they are allowed to be on the same roads with me they are certainly no more of a threat if they are armed.
Guns and golf clubs have the same purposes... recreation and... as you pointed out... defense. if a couple of people got killed with 9 irons like a couple of people (and a dog) did with guns,,, would you then be for a ban of golf clubs?
or wait.... is it because one of the royals got killed by peasants.... is that why you are so upset? would you be just as upset if it was one of the lower class?
As for cultural differences... you ought to just be happy they exist because whatever we are doing we are doing it right enough to support most of your little tax shelter of an island.. so... you ought to just say.... "whatever you guys are doing... keep doing it."
I guess I just never did get the whole euro ruling class thing... all left over baggage from medieval times so far as I am concerned... It's what holds back europe and most of the world IMO.
The fact that we allow ordinary people to have guns is a plus.
In short.... I am insulted to be part of your elite.
lazs
-
Nice attempt to bring in all sorts of issues, including elitism lazs, but the only reason I segregated you from the stupid people is due to your experience and your gun safety savy.
You trust your neigbours in the literal sense or you trust the entire US population?
Does that include blacks?
-
Why is it that you, and others, keep claiming that you support my "tax shelter" island. This must be an American idiosynracy. We are a small island so you MUST be responsible for us?
We are a British colony Lazs, not an American one.
If anything we prop up your multi-trillion dollar insurance industry. Without us, or a simialr substitute the Euros would be eating you guys for breakfast.
So...you are welcome.
It's what holds back europe and most of the world IMO.
Holds them back from what? Owning guns? If so..okay, but if not...what?
-
Curval I don't consider you anti-gun.
This is an opinion I have formed and could be way off base ---> I consider you to be European. Or at the very least to have a European mind set. This is not to say that is bad or wrong. Just different from mine. <--- If I offend please accept my appoligy now as this is not intended as an offence.
As to having an answer to your answer of my question, yes I have one and will give it.
To me, and here i admit I seem to be becoming part of a minority now, it's individual over community in nearly every case.
I believe that each individual MUST accept full responsibility for their actions words and deeds........
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Anglo-Irish playwright, critic
......To me there are far too many people that want to protect us from ourselves. Even if it means they must enslave us. I see over and over these arguments that essentially seek control of the populace. I respond with the quote.......
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
slaves." William Pitt English politician, prime minister.
..... OK i'm using quotes allot here. This is because someone else has already said it and said it better then I could IMHO.
Our legal system, the Judges, the Lawyers, etc. are changing things away from this. The pysch community is helping them a great deal and the media is on the band wagon too.
Anyways from my prespective preventing or removing the ability to purchase/own firearms undermines that big time.
Further our (in the U.S.) educators instead of teaching safety teach avoidance.
It's very much like the following quote.....
"Many politicians lay it down as a self-evident proposition
that no people ought to be free until they are fit to use
their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old
story who resolved not to go into the water until he had
learned to swim.", from Lord Macaulay an English historian.
.......they (people) have to learn. If our educators refuse to teach then how can they learn? They must accept the responsibility and teach themselves? I tend to see it that way. Many of the accidents and neglegence you refer to IMHO comes indirectly or possibly even directly from this lack of education on safety, and instead the use of an avoidance system.
To me the avoidance system seems much like the following quote.....
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of
folly, is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
English philosopher
.....for me what you don't know can kill you and do so very quickly.
P.S. I've seen some of the packaging for firearms LOL was wondering who they hired to design em and who they hired to pack em! Cause in some cases it looked like a mix of rocket science and Rube Goldberg.
P.S.S. I, in no way, hold your opinion against you. I may disagree but there are no hard or wrong feelings toward you, or anyone for that matter, for having an opinion that differs from mine.
-
curval... yes.. I trust all my fellow Americans with firearms. I think that if safety became an issue with some of the inexperianced new owners then they would learn soon enough...
I would even give mass murders or bank robbers their guns back when they were released from prison...
The way I look at it... if they are good enough to be free citizens alongside me then they are good enough to have the human right to defend themselves.
as for bermuda and the U.S. ..... symbiotic relationship at most... but, don't get so full of yourself over your importance to us... if you didn't exist we would create you.
One thing I have learned over the years is that no one is irreplaceable.
I allways here this "people are too stupid to have guns" from the euros here... It creeps me out... that you guys all have this eliteist history and it still is inbred into you... that is what I am talking about.
lazs
-
It is the free citizens right and duty to be at all times armed. That they may injoy their freedom of religion,press,property,and person.
Thomas Jefferson,written to John Cartwright.....1824.
The thing is we believe our founding fathers knew what they were doing, and we choose to believe them, as they knew first hand the possible heavy handedness of goverment by europes example.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
It is the free citizens right and duty to be at all times armed. That they may injoy their freedom of religion,press,property,and person.
Thomas Jefferson,written to John Cartwright.....1824.
The thing is we believe our founding fathers knew what they were doing, and we choose to believe them, as they knew first hand the possible heavy handedness of goverment by europes example.
You're not wrong, but all these TJ quotes are anachronistic in the 21st century. People were still defending their properties themselves (visions of the man of the house standing on the stoop, rifle in arms with a raccoon thing on his head).
We've already established, in this thread, that no way would citizens with their 6-shooters be a match for what the military could throw at them (witness Waco,TX). And we've also established, in this thread, that no way would the US military, which is made up of US citizens, annihilate the civilian population. So forget those 19th century anachronisms. You're just using those to suit your agenda, not because they have any bearing on modern life.
I'm like Curval - I completely trust guys like Lazs with guns. It's the idiots I don't trust, and I'm somewhat appalled with the ease with which said idiots can acquire deadly weapons and then go on an evil mission.
I have never said that law abiding Americans should be made to give up their guns. I'm opposed to unilateral disarmament. But given that most countries were not settled like the US and had no frontiersmen with raccoons on their heads, there was never any need for guns and that's why we don't have them, not because we once had them and then they were forcibly taken away. Countries around the world have seen America's folly of arming idiots. And those countries which have never had and never needed an armed populace do not want to see a skyrocketing annual homicide rate. If we had gunshops on every corner, WE would also have a homicide rate as high as America's. It makes no difference whether the people dying in the ensuing bloodbath are white, black, law abiding, criminals, drug users, non users, good people, bad people... a bloodbath is a bloodbath, and it's not something the British public wishes to see. That goes for the general population of many other countries too.
-
America’s history with guns goes back to the days of frontiersmen. In those days, you HAD to have a gun. Because you’ve never been to Europe and have little knowledge about how other countries came to be what they are today, it may be difficult for you to comprehend that Britain’s origins are completely different from those of the US. We never had any frontiersmen. We never had any Davy Crocketts or Daniel Boones. The first King of England was Egbert in AD.803 In the centuries since, Britain saw many battles as our territorial map was drawn. Many of these famous battles took place at a time before guns existed, and so arrows and spears and swords were used instead. Richard III was the last monarch to die in battle – in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth, a few miles from where I was born.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Church was all powerful in Britain. Many Churches were built, and many still stand. There was turmoil when Henry VIII could not get a divorce from his first wife, a situation that led to Henry forming his own Church – the Church of England, and the execution of Sir Thomas More.
You simply cannot compare the history with Britain with that of America. Your Thomas Jefferson quotes come from a time when the US was less than 50 years old, and are about as relevant to modern life as King John and the Magna Carta is to us. In your earlier “we have guns and you don’t” crowing, you simply fail to understand the difference in our two countries’ origins. You’re doing what Lazs used to do – trying to make the US thesis fit the UK model. It doesn’t work.
Guns were a part of your history, but guns did not exist when our history was unfolding – ie. battles like Bosworth, and the 1066 Norman conquest, and the Roman occupation before that.
So to say that you have “more freedom” because you can own certain types of guns is as ridiculous as if I were to say I have more freedom than you because I can attend an 800 year old Cathedral, and you can’t.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... yes.. I trust all my fellow Americans with firearms. I think that if safety became an issue with some of the inexperianced new owners then they would learn soon enough...
I would even give mass murders or bank robbers their guns back when they were released from prison...
The way I look at it... if they are good enough to be free citizens alongside me then they are good enough to have the human right to defend themselves.
as for bermuda and the U.S. ..... symbiotic relationship at most... but, don't get so full of yourself over your importance to us... if you didn't exist we would create you.
One thing I have learned over the years is that no one is irreplaceable.
I allways here this "people are too stupid to have guns" from the euros here... It creeps me out... that you guys all have this eliteist history and it still is inbred into you... that is what I am talking about.
lazs
I'm confused. I've been told that you, and others, have guns for the BIG 3 reasons.
1. Self defense
2. Fun
3. Hunting
I haven't seen any pictures of you shooting any big game, or any game for that matter. I haven't seen any posts in which you profess your love of the great outdoors and in which you display any trophies, such as a deer or moose.
So, I assume your not the great white hunter.
This takes "hunting" out of the equasion, in your particular case.
Fun. Yes. I've seen pictures of you plinking cans and targets. I've read how much you enjoy maintaining your guns as well as collecting them. This I can understand and relate to.
But, self-defense?
Forgive me, but I don't see the need, given all your "trust" of your fellow Americans.
It seems to be all about fun. Okay fine, but please stop all the nonesense about Monarchies and the lack of freedom in Bermuda and Europe and concentrate on what is important, the prevention of your own citizens from taking your toys away.
-
Ok curval first... yes I trust my neighbors. I also realize that the world is full of very bad people who will do bad things. when they do... I want to be armed...I also want my nmeighbors to be armed. I see no percentage (and the studies back me up) in maki8ng it so that only the criminals have the advantage in force.
I am for strict laws and penalties on gun crime and lax gun laws on gun ownership and use otherwise. simple no? And of course... as all the studies point out.. a very pragmatic and logical way to deal with the problem of aggressive bad guys..
To think that murderers cease to be murderers when guns ar hard or even impossible to get is ludicrous.. To think that you are a match for them with a nine iron is romantic and ignorant.
but I don't understand... What does it matter what my reason is?
lazs
-
Now beetle...
Are you claiming that government and humans are completetly different today than 200 or so years ago? No chance of tyranny or of bad guys out to harm people? The co9nstitution wasn't meant to protect us from wild animals or guarentee that we had foord on the table..
The second was a human ritght to defend against tyranny. Nothing in the constitutiojn is outdated. People have not changed. Your own country proves that bad guys will do bad things no matter what the laws. And you live on a tiny little island that has easily secured borders and no place for the bad guys to hide.
All in all... firearms in the hands of normal average citizens is a net plus for detterent of all types..
Waco? How many wacos could a tyrannical government squash at one time? especially if their buildings were being bombed and their military was half or more in favor of the people? No military of our government could put out the fires by even a few million dedicated and armed citizens.
As for trusting me with guns but no one else... I am again... insulted. I do not wish to be an elite. You are not the first new shooter I have trained.. I felt no threat from even the least intelligent or poor of them. I can see no reason for my neigbors to not have firearms if they wish. I worry more that they drive cars. I have not met anyone interested in firearms that seemed to stupid to be deprived of his rights.
lazs
-
And... let's reverse cuirvals thinking... what are the reasons the anti gun people have for taking away the human right to self defense?
(1) In bermuda peasants killed a few of the elite royals with guns
(2) the peasants are too stupid to use tools.
(3) I don't care about guns so it doesn't matter.
those are the only reasons I have seen so far.
lazs
-
Lazs,
Two questions.
1) If you trust your neighbours, and you would trust a mass murderer with a gun upon completion of his prison sentence, who are the people you fear to such a degree that you need to keep that loaded .45 by your bed when you sleep?
2) When your "founding fathers" passed the 2nd amendment, and Thomas Jefferson spoke with such patriotic fervour, do you think the people of that time ever imagined that blacks could become US citizens, and would be able to buy .44 magnums? If the answer is NO, then that is what has changed in 200 years.
oops - gotta go, someone at the door. I wonder who it is at this time in the evening. Probably a guy selling double glazing, or a neighbour to whine about the parking, or a mass murderer - nothing to worry about...
-
Be sure to take your 9 iron to the door with you! Or maybe a hammer or sharp object!
You just never know.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The first King of England was Egbert in AD.803
???????
of ALL England. yes, but not 1st King. and it was in 829 AD he was proclaimed sole ruler of Britain.
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon1.html (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon1.html)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs,
Two questions.
1) If you trust your neighbours, and you would trust a mass murderer with a gun upon completion of his prison sentence, who are the people you fear to such a degree that you need to keep that loaded .45 by your bed when you sleep?
2) When your "founding fathers" passed the 2nd amendment, and Thomas Jefferson spoke with such patriotic fervour, do you think the people of that time ever imagined that blacks could become US citizens, and would be able to buy .44 magnums? If the answer is NO, then that is what has changed in 200 years.
oops - gotta go, someone at the door. I wonder who it is at this time in the evening. Probably a guy selling double glazing, or a neighbour to whine about the parking, or a mass murderer - nothing to worry about...
I trust my neighbours, however, history and reality show that here in America, well actually all over the world, there are bad people around. These bad people from time to time do bad things to other people. The difficulty seems to come from that silly thing we have saying you are innocent until provin guilty.
Actually I think T.J. did think in time black people would be free. He spoke of it, and against it (slavery), several times. He seemed to feel we were only storing up trouble for ourselves. Said as much.
In fact I think what seemed to be worrying many back then was what was happening in Haiti, around 1809 I think it was.
Also from what I've read there would not have been a U.S. if those wishing slavery abolished had gotten what they wanted. I think at least 6 of the 13 states said they would not join the Union unless slavery was permitted.
-
Yuck!!!!!
This kinda stuff really goes on over there???
# London's Daily Telegraph reported in August on the veiled but apparently active market of British collectors who buy and sell fetuses and stillborn babies, with one seller saying he has heard of prices over 5,000 pounds (US$9,100). The major suppliers, apparently, are labs and medical schools, which dispose of their "curiosities," usually deformed fetuses such as babies with two heads. Said one dealer, of the seriousness of the collectors, "(It) is a very small market, but a very keen market." [Daily Telegraph, 8- 1-04]
-
Originally posted by wrag
Yuck!!!!!
This kinda stuff really goes on over there???
# London's Daily Telegraph reported in August on the veiled but apparently active market of British collectors who buy and sell fetuses and stillborn babies, with one seller saying he has heard of prices over 5,000 pounds (US$9,100). The major suppliers, apparently, are labs and medical schools, which dispose of their "curiosities," usually deformed fetuses such as babies with two heads. Said one dealer, of the seriousness of the collectors, "(It) is a very small market, but a very keen market." [Daily Telegraph, 8- 1-04]
Oh yes Wrag...it is a British weakness. All British people are compelled to collect baby fetuses.
They start with the peasants and then when no more can be found the gentry are called upon to supply whatever fetal matter they can.
In Bermuda we wait until our gracious leader Queen Elizabeth II pronounces how many fetuses will be required annually from the colonies. We, as a group, then meet to discuss how many each colony will provide.
It is all worked out by prorating the requirement against the population of each country.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Oh yes Wrag...it is a British weakness. All British people are compelled to collect baby fetuses.
They start with the peasants and then when no more can be found the gentry are called upon to supply whatever fetal matter they can.
In Bermuda we wait until our gracious leader Queen Elizabeth II pronounces how many fetuses will be required annually from the colonies. We, as a group, then meet to discuss how many each colony will provide.
It is all worked out by prorating the requirement against the population of each country.
Knew it had to be something like that.
h
(rofl)
-
Beetle.......reply....
Really? Anachronistic in the 21st century. Seems genocide would be to,but it isnt is it. No our constitution and bill of rights are more important today then back then even.
Please drop the raccoon and trusting a mass muderer with a 45 after he/she has done the time.It is intelligently dishonest.
We have not,repeat,not established that armed citizens would have no effect on this goverment. What is this 6 shooter misdirection about? You have read what we have said, and to come up with 6 shooters against atomic bombs is again, intelligently dishonest.
We are not in the main talking about other gov. Rather we are talking about ours. You are right,you did not have frontiersmen. But you did have kings,knights,barons etc. , which made the common people nothing but slaves.
Again you are right ,the British people ,and others in europe ,most but not all of the world for that matter , have no concept of ...give me liberty or give me death...Europes motto is give me life at all cost.
To say I have no Idea, or little knowledge, of how other countries came to be, is again intelligently dishonest. I recieve knowledge of europe in the same way you recieve knowledge of america.I will put my history education up against yours any time.
I do not compare our history to yours,there simply is no comparasion. But I tell you this , if you truely believe the magna carta has no bearing on England today,and if there are enough like you , you sir will soon lose what freedom you do have. It will only take one generation, to lose all that has been gained thru bloodshed over many generations.
Yes I do believe we have more freedom than you ,only because I believe we have more of a chance of keeping it than you do. The fact is , you can not stop your gov from doing anything it wants to when it wants to. Our gov. has to stop and think first , simply because we are armed. Does that mean it is written in stone that we would prevail? No it doesnt,but like our fore fathers I would rather die taking a few with me, than live in bondage.
Why do you care what I or my fellow Americans think about our constitution or bill of rights.We are, on the hole, not an aggressive nation. If we were ,after ww2 we would have ruled the world.Instead we went home.
respectfully,demaw.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
To say I have no Idea, or little knowledge, of how other countries came to be, is again intelligently dishonest. I recieve knowledge of europe in the same way you recieve knowledge of america.I will put my history education up against yours any time.
Bollocks. You've never been here. Have you ever left the US? Maybe you don't have enough freedom to do that. :lol I have lived in America, and been to about 41 states. I picked up quite a bit of civil war history on visits to Stone Mountain,GA and Charleston,SC. Not saying I'm an expert. Where do you learn your European history? I'd hazard a guess and say random Google searches for troll bait. I've already commented on your spelling, which would be much better if you read quality history books - assuming you learned from them. Perhaps you do read them, and learn nothing...
Magna Carta was in the time of King John, 1215 - and I don't mean 15 minutes after noon. Of course it was an important event, but we don't think about it on a daily basis the way you think of Thomas Jefferson every time you see a gun. :rolleyes: Yes I do believe we have more freedom than you ,only because I believe we have more of a chance of keeping it than you do. The fact is , you can not stop your gov from doing anything it wants to when it wants to. Our gov. has to stop and think first , simply because we are armed. Does that mean it is written in stone that we would prevail? No it doesnt,but like our fore fathers I would rather die taking a few with me, than live in bondage.
That one paragraph encapsulates your naivety. There's no way that scenario is ever going to be played out, and I think you know it. The fact is , you can not stop your gov from doing anything it wants to when it wants to.
Taking this sentence in isolation, and it's bollocks! Didn't you read what I said earlier? No, clearly not.:( Very well, I will repeat.
Do you remember who Margaret Thatcher was? She was Prime Minister of Britain 1979-1990, a period which completely overlapped the Reagan presidency. And the two of them were very good friends. MT had great power, and won three election victories, providing her with an unassailable position in the House of Commons. Under her premiership, the trade unionists "quivered under their bunks", to coin a Lazsism. The era of industrial disputes and stoppages was ended under her iron rule. Indeed, she became known as the Iron Lady in British politics. Under her rule, the cloth cap era came to a close, and industrial dinosaurs that did little more than soak up taxpayers' money were laid to rest. She eschewed the erstwhile punitive income taxes established by Labour - 83%, plus a 15% investment income surcharge! :eek: Under MT, IIS was abolished, and the top rate of income tax reduced by more than half to 40%. Whole industries were privatised and given a new lease of life, eg. Jaguar Cars having been freed from union shackles had half the work force but produced more cars than before, and they were much better cars than before. She also decided wisely that governments should not be in the business of running airlines, and so British Airways (which had lost hundreds of millions of £ while under state control) was privatised, and went on to become the most profitable airline in the world. There's more, but you get the picture.
But in 1989, she went too far with her reforms, and introduced the Community Charge (nicknamed the Poll Tax after a similar tax in 1381) as a means of collecting money for local services, to replace the old Rates system. There was uproar and outrage. There were demonstrations in the streets, and votes against the Government in local and by-elections. MT's own ministers could see the writing on the wall, and one rose up to declare that MT's huge achievements were best protected under the premiership of someone else. There was a leadsership contest, and MT lost. She had to suffer the ignominy of being driven to Buckingham Palace to tender her resignation to HM The Queen, and of being driven away in a different car, as she was no longer entitled to use the prime ministerial limousine. For some BBC archive material on the whole debacle, click here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/england/pwar_poll_tax.shtml). For an account of the original 1381 Peasants' Revolt: http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/peasantsrevolt.html
Now Demaw, I hope you might learn a few things from this account. Let me bullet point them for you. - Britain is not a totalitarian state.
- No-one has absolute power.
- The British public IS allowed the freedom to make peaceful demonstrations, and can speak out against the government.
- People are allowed to drive past a group of demonstrators and honk their car horns in support, without being tasered by the police.
- MT was brought down as a result of public protest and outrage, and the realisation of ministers that she could not be allowed to continue.
I'll post all this again next week, as clearly it will take you several readings to assimilate. :p
Damn shame about Maggie; I liked her.
-
beetle... to answer your questions.
Where did I say that I trusted released mass murders with a gun? I said... that they should be given their gun upon release. If they are still too dangerous to be given their own firearm back then they are far too dangerous to be released to go and find one illegaly. Let's just get it out in the open.
I do trust my neighbors with guns. I trust them more tho if I also have a gun... Most of the people who are a threat to others are not simply neighbors... I am an American tho... not gonna get into the whole ruling class thing with you... I am no better or worse a person to have a gun than my neighbors and I am sure that toad and wrag et all agree. Until my neighbors show that they can't be trusted with firearms... I'm not gonna judge.
You said two questions but then you also asked..
Something about colored folks being able to buy 44 mag revolvers and how Jefferson couldn't have forseen that? Well... he did forsee bad people strongarming good people... in those days... a bad guy couled have a 75 caliber pistol and.... you didn't get quite the fussy medical care you do now.
people haven't changed... governments haven't changed and guns are still deadly. And... the constitution is even more appropriate now than ever.
A citizenship skilled in firearms use is indeed a threat to a tyranical government.
And.... exactly how much has your murder rate gone down now that you have this draconian gun laws that disarm your citizens? Your crime has gon up since then when it was falling before the gun laws. I can see how you would be naive about crime in your area... the king never expected peasants to poach the kings land until they did.... The lower class is capable of anything eh?
lazs
-
I also notice that in your lecture on British politics you praise MT ( I liked her too... best brit leader ever)..
What you praise is her lowering taxes and her privatising all the socialism...... you seem to be saying that the government is clumsy and stupid and wasteful and yet...
You like their gun control ideas that are proven to do nothing but raise crime? Some failed government policies you despise but other rfailed government medling is ok if it suits your fears of your lower class "stupid people"?
curval thinks losing his rights is ok if it will possibly save a few future royal rulling class from getting shot. He would give up golf if golf clubs were seen to be a threat byu the rulling class.
lazs
-
Hi Lazs!
people haven't changed... governments haven't changed and guns are still deadly. And... the constitution is even more appropriate now than ever. ...A citizenship skilled in firearms use is indeed a threat to a tyranical government.
When England was a nation growing up, which I will define as from the Roman occupation through the Norman conquest and to the end of the Middle Ages, guns had not been invented. By the time guns had been invented, and existed in significant numbers, Britain had stable government, owned a third of the world and had the most powerful navy in the world - and had got over its paranoia about tyrannical governments by then. You like their gun control ideas that are proven to do nothing but raise crime?
You're still spouting these fallacies, despite the enormous efforts Nashwan has applied to bringing the real stats to this board. But you choose to ignore them for some reason. ;)
-
Wow. After dredging up all those crime stats that separate you...a white man...from the black and hispanics that commit all the crime in the United States I find it particularly amusing that you throwing accusations of eliteism and class "bigotry" around.
:D :D
-
beetle... I took the charts directly from the home office website that nashwan linked me to. I named the chart that showed crime going down before the ban and then going up after... I got no response.
curval... what is your point? I am not saying to ban guns from black people... I use black people only to point out that your (UK) homicide rate is not much different than ours if you remove the blacks from the equation... you simply have a different population makeup for better or worse.
englands homicide rate did not get better after the ban... I think it would get worse in the U.S. I don't want the criminals to have a free ride... I don't want to cower under my bed like a brit.
lazs
-
LOL - I can't fit under my bed. I have drawers under it.
I'll leave Nashwan to deal with the stats.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I use black people only to point out that your (UK) homicide rate is not much different than ours if you remove the blacks from the equation... you simply have a different population makeup for better or worse.
lol...yup.
-
You keep saying that Britain's 1996 gun ban was the cause of rising crime. In an earlier thread (your favourite poll thread - LOL), Momus answered this point thus:
Lazs, I see you're still asserting that the there's a causal link between a crime rate that was already going up prior to the hand-gun ban and the '96 hand-gun ban itself, despite no evidence to back this up.
The argument might fit the US model but it doesn't hold for the UK, unless you're seriously arguing that a few thousand pistol enthusiasts with their weapons either stored in guns clubs or at home in a locked safe were the only thing holding back the crime wave you seem to believe has swamped us in the years since the ban. :lol
Where the hell's Demaw? Must still be working. So much for his freedom. :rofl
-
momus quote makes about as much sense and banning firearms for everyone in bermuda because a few of the upper class royals got shot...
Momus is basicly saying that just because crime goes up when guns are banned that there is no relationship between criminals getting bolder and citizens being unable to defend themselves.
Lets say that it stayed the same... let's pretend that it didn't go up... if that were the case then you would conclude that you gave up your gun rights for a gain of...... nothing.
curval... laugh if you want but... I have never said that we should take guns away from blacks.. You on the other hand are claiming that we should take guns away from everyone because a few thousand blacks and whites abuse them.
lazs
-
No lazs.
Firstly the governor is not a royal.
Secondly I'm not saying we should take guns away from any of you in the US. I simply support the ban on this island.
Thirdly, I realise you don't want to take guns away from blacks. With all that trust you have for all of your citizens you don't want to take guns away from anyone. But...you are quite happy to blame all the crime on blacks and then suggest that you need your guns to defend yourself. I can only assume from this that you are defending yourself against blacks.
But go on...tell me how "I" am being elitest again...go on...it is quite hilarious.
-
Originally posted by Curval
No lazs.
Firstly the governor is not a royal.
Secondly I'm not saying we should take guns away from any of you in the US. I simply support the ban on this island.
Thirdly, I realise you don't want to take guns away from blacks. With all that trust you have for all of your citizens you don't want to take guns away from anyone. But...you are quite happy to blame all the crime on blacks and then suggest that you need your guns to defend yourself. I can only assume from this that you are defending yourself against blacks.
But go on...tell me how "I" am being elitest again...go on...it is quite hilarious.
IMHO Laz is not saying that at all. He's quoting the stats.
The Stats are the Stats. Laz nor I nor anyone else can change the stats.
I have to say, from where I grew up, that the stats are probably pretty accurate. I found myself having to deal with a certain mindset in certain areas of this nation. While to some this might seem skin color specific I tended to look at the area as having a conciderable affect on those stats. Some areas of several states seem to have some pretty harsh people in them. Or at least some of these people seem to have a mindset that results in a very harsh response to certain types of prodding. These areas seem to be connected to large inner city type places.
The numbers are there. Laz didn't make em up.
-
No..but he keeps manipulating them.
Why does he want to take black people out of those stats? To try show that the UK stats vs the US are pretty much equal when this is done.
Now think very hard about what he is really saying.
Then read some of the tidbits from his other posts:
"Whites have more to fear from blacks with guns than vice versa... more than twice as much in fact.. "
"As for the racial issue... It is important only when people ask why we have so many murders in the U.S. and then try to blame a bunch of white folks in pointed hoods out shooting poor blacks out of fear as moore portrayed in "bowling" When it is brought out that 15% of the population commits allmost 60% of the homidcides it becomes an important issue.
"Whites and lawful blacks would seem to need to be armed more rather than less."
Note the use of "whites and lawful blacks.
But yet "I" am being elitest. lol
Even one of lazs' "converts" views the US this way:
"So the issue is not so much about guns but the relatively large underclass of underprivileged, uneducated people, often from minorities who exist around the edges of society in the United States. "
-
Originally posted by lazs2
momus quote makes about as much sense and banning firearms for everyone in bermuda because a few of the upper class royals got shot...
Momus is basicly saying that just because crime goes up when guns are banned that there is no relationship between criminals getting bolder and citizens being unable to defend themselves.
No. Momus is pointing out that the only people who were affected by the change in the gun law were a relative handful of gun club enthusiasts, and that to link any rise in crime with the gun ban is to accredit those few thousand pistol shooting enthusiasts with holding back a crime wave.
-
No... I don't hink he was saying that only a few people were affected by the ban.... 52 million people were... It matters not if you want a handgun right now... you may in the future. the ban was aimed at you and all the queens subjects weather you feel it was or not.
As for a few thousand pistol owners hiolding back a crime wave.... well... using your own logic... if only a few thousand law abiding gun club members had handguns then...
why ban em in the first place? you certainly didn't see a drop in crime... you seen an increase... if anything... you made things worse for no concievable reason.
If you don't want to have firearms that is fine but... I have read many posts here from your countrymen who don't feel as you do... they certainly feel restricted unfairly.
lazs
-
Don't think so. I never had any plans to buy a gun anyway. If I was going to, I think I'd have done it long before 1996. Give it up, Lazs. The US thesis does not fit the UK model.
Going to sleep now - no gun on the night stand, but I'll sleep well anyway.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_8_4v.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Don't think so. I never had any plans to buy a gun anyway. If I was going to, I think I'd have done it long before 1996. Give it up, Lazs. The US thesis does not fit the UK model.
Going to sleep now - no gun on the night stand, but I'll sleep well anyway.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_8_4v.gif)
LOL like I said apples and oranges!
-
Beetle ...reply....
Im back.he he he.....Working?,Dont know depends on when you posted.
Intelligently...thanks for the compliment,you noticed the use of intelligently instead of intellectually,I love it. Since your last whine about my misspelling and my explaining of same,and since you do not correct anyone else .I knew you would not accept my explaination,I just couldnt resist giving you a little pinch.
As far as google goes ,I just found it a little while a go,great place,am I to assume you never use it? I have in my library 4,123 books . I have read them all,I have even read the comic books [12] 2 times.I started counting them just for you,then my capitalist nature kicked in ,I told my son I would buy his college parking permit if he counted them for me.
I am flattered and yet amazed at your post.
Flattered because your use of misdirection and your sectarian, secondary assessments of my intelligence only ocur when you and like minded people have no reasonable response.
Amazed because I suggest ,it is disingenuous for someone of your higher intellect, to believe a scenario that has been played out many times in history,cannot happen again.
Your lecture on MT was very well written. I am frankly surprised that you were able to encapsulate the Ladys whole reign in so few words.I agree, it is to bad the british peasants threw out the baby with the bath water, over one mistake.
I must say you are really intellectually dishonest in your response about Britian. I never said Britian wasnt at this time a free nation.That misdirection even for you is, well silly, and does nothing to further a some what serious debate.
Again you did not really address my points.
Time for bed, as I have to work tomarrow to pay for those in my country, that think as you do about work.
-
Originally posted by wrag
LOL like I said apples and oranges!
Yes, indeed. The gun legislation of which Lazs speaks was enacted shortly after the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland, an event which was similar to the Columbine disaster in that a nut with a gun entered a school and shot up pupils and staff.
But even before that, there was no public gun ownership of the kind seen in the US. Most people never gave it a second thought. We never thought about guns for the same reasons that residents of CA probably never think about thermal underwear or umbrellas.
Hiya Demaw! Well, FWIW, I think you're probably quite a nice chap. :D
I used Google to find those BBC links.
How's it going with those stairs calculations? I would take a gun to work tomorrow. That way, if you got it wrong, you can threaten to shoot the guy when he refuses to pay up.
-
(http://www.onion.com/images/397/image_article2552_250x212.jpg)
-
curval... as was pointed out.. I merely quote the stats. The fact that a very small minority causes allmost all the homicides is indeed good reason for the rest of us to be armed if we so choose. We are not some tiny little tourist trap or tax shelter office where banning guns would even be possible... we are a large diverse countrry where banning guns makes the crime rate go up because the predetors become the better armed of the citizenship.
Two thugs with knives are better armed than an old lady... An old lady with a 1911 .45 is better armed than two thugs with knives... it is good to make laws that allow the old lady to have a gun and good to also make laws that add so much time to crimal use of firearms that they are shunned by crooks. law abiding blacks and whites that are armed are a benifiet to the rest of the country. Much like the presence of armed police.
beetle... you did not answer my question... if the thousands of pistol owners in england were not having any effect on crime then why ban firearms?
oh... I slept soundly last night also.. the green glow of tritium night sights was as comforting to me as maybe the green glow of "alarm armed" light is to you or... the sight of the chrome buckle of the uncomfortable shoulder strap of your three point seat belt that you strap on every time you get into the car... even tho the chance you may need either is so miniscule as to make your "fear" laughable.. Hell... at least the .45 is fun and good looking.
I find anyone with sophisticated locks on their doors and electronic alarms and a fetish for seat belts and helmets telling me that I "live in fear" because I enjoy hanguns and firearmes in general... well... I find this to be, at the very least... hypocritical and neurotic.
I am even less impressed with people who feel well armed with a 9 iron.
lazs
-
Well, you have to watch out for a guy with a wicked slice.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... as was pointed out.. I merely quote the stats. The fact that a very small minority causes allmost all the homicides is indeed good reason for the rest of us to be armed if we so choose. We are not some tiny little tourist trap or tax shelter office where banning guns would even be possible... we are a large diverse countrry where banning guns makes the crime rate go up because the predetors become the better armed of the citizenship.
Understood, but my comments, which I still believe to be valid, were written as a reaction to your drivel about "subjects" "royals" and "eliteism".
If you continue to bring up that stuff I will continue to bring up your obvious racial bias as a counter.
Quite simple really.
-
Please show me an example of my "obvious racial bias" ...
It should be quite easy as I have mentioned race many times over the years on here.
My girlfriend and grand daughter will probly be interested in how you arrived at the conclussion that I am a biggot.
So far as I know.... I have allways advocated equal treatment for all races. Much more so than a lot of liberals who feel that most races are inferior to theirs and can only survive with said liberals generous help.
lazs
-
Guns........ she says it far better then I
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128283
-
Beetle...
Damn fine idea beetle , never thought of that , I knew you would come around to the light...lol.
Stair calculations are fine, problem is the 1st floor wall does not line up with 2nd floor wall as plans show. Think Ill use that gun on the darn architect.
I had to run the beams higher to have room for the plumbing and heating.In doing so it required 2 more risers to get to second floor, which made the hall to narrow etc. But I figured it out,I will start installing them tomarrow.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... you did not answer my question... if the thousands of pistol owners in england were not having any effect on crime then why ban firearms?
(http://www.billfriedrich.com/~kelly/LN/spock8.jpg)
illogical...
-
put another way..... Why ban firearms if the thousands of pistol owners were not causing any INCREASE in crime? Why bother? I submit that they had a positive affect if any since the crime went up rather than down after the ban but... even if the effect were zero.... why bother to change the law?
In burmuda they did it because of the fear of the government.... several royals and the royal dogs were killed.
lazs
-
Obtuse obtuse obtuse
The governor is NOT a royal...neither is his dog.
It is Americans who consistantly use their "fear of government" to justify their ownership of guns not us.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
put another way..... Why ban firearms if the thousands of pistol owners were not causing any INCREASE in crime? Why bother? I submit that they had a positive affect if any since the crime went up rather than down after the ban but... even if the effect were zero.... why bother to change the law?
I don't think the change in law was to inconvenience pistol shooters. Its design was more to do with the prevention of another Dunblane (we'd already had Hungerford). UK gun homicides are currently < 100 in any calendar year, as compared with a minimum of 5,000 in the US (sometimes more than 13,000 - as in 1992) in any calendar year. I never said our gun laws worked perfectly, but I'm glad they're there.
-
appears to be the other way around... it is your government that has proven it fears an armed citizenry.
We merely claim that governments should fear an armed citizenry. If we have no teeth then they have no fear.
you pretty much prove my case by showing that governments do fear armed citizens and try to disarm them... having the royals and the royal dog killed really shook em up it appears.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In burmuda they did it because of the fear of the government.... several royals and the royal dogs were killed.
lazs
Then you say:
it is your government that has proven it fears an armed citizenry
Which is it Lazs....you keep making this up as you go along.
-
all governments fear an armed citiizenry.... yours simply did something about it and made you helpless.
Hope you don't live to regret it but... all you are capable of IS hope at this point... the royals pulled your fangs.
lazs
-
As Beet1e has already pointed out...your government does not fear you. What you say sounds great but it is just silly in the context of modern day society.
-
No Gun Control is a VERY BAD IDEA. For the simple reason that our government is based on a system of checks and blances that keeps one organization or another from gaining too much power, the right to bear arms is the only check and balance we americans have to protect our soverignty. It may sound radical or revolutionary, but it is the only true insurance we have. Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mousolini, all implemented gun control to seize weapons from the citizenry once they seized control of the governments. The right to bear arms is not only to defend yourself, it is the only balance We The People have to dissolve the governing body if we should ever need to.
-
Originally posted by twitchy
No Gun Control is a VERY BAD IDEA. For the simple reason that our government is based on a system of checks and blances that keeps one organization or another from gaining too much power, the right to bear arms is the only check and balance we americans have to protect our soverignty. It may sound radical or revolutionary, but it is the only true insurance we have. Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mousolini, all implemented gun control to seize weapons from the citizenry once they seized control of the governments. The right to bear arms is not only to defend yourself, it is the only balance We The People have to dissolve the governing body if we should ever need to.
I know of many occasions when people have enjoyed a false sense of security, provided by a dubious insurance policy. When they come to make a claim, ruh-roh - there's a long list of exclusion clauses. Better check your coverage, if I were you. I don't think it's going to cut the mustard.
Lazs - you've been to Britain, but it seems you learned nothing from it. You need to try to understand that in at least four generations, we have not been an armed society. There was never a time when Brits roamed the streets packing heat. There was never a time when I or any of my friends or relatives EVER slept with a loaded .45 by the bed, with one in the spout. You're fond of making it sound that we were all armed, just as in America, and then on one dark day had all our guns taken away... it was never like that. There was no mass confiscation because there would have been bugger all to confiscate. OK, we had highwaymen in centuries gone by, and stage coaches that ran from London to the west country sometimes got robbed around Hounslow Heath, so gentlemen passengers were advised to carry their "sidearms". But that was yonks ago.
In order to portray your vision of Britain, you seem to use a composite picture, drawn from several different centuries. And that Britain exists only in your mind.
-
Never a time that your citizens were armed with revolvers and handguns? Bull.... You had a very high percentage of gun owners in the early 1900's up till 1920.
As for your thinking that governments aren't fearfull of armed citizens... look at every tyrant, including england and you will see that the first thing a tyrant does is try to disarm the citizens... revolutions abound in this world... very successful ones... because of guns.. it is you who should read the fine print on your policy... vietnam.. china south and central America.. Africa and afgahn and all over the globe people change history and topple governments with firearms.
The U.S. could not rule an armed citizenry without their consent.
curval.. it is yu who are being obtuse... beetle has not come close to proving that firearms can't topple goverments... that is silly on the face of it. The U.S. would be a very hard country to impose tyranical rule over.
All freedom costs.. it seems that our freedom to own the right to defend ourselves causes our murders to be done with guns instead of knives or bombs... our murder rate is about 1 in 100000 more than england but we prevent 2-3 million crimes a year with em... who knows how many of those millions would have been murders?
Our countries are different... I like having armed cops and I like knowing that there are responsible citizens out there with concealed carry permits ready and willing to defend me or mine.
I would like to take this opportunity to...
to thank all concealled carry permit holders... Thank you for being good citizens and taking the crap you get on these boards and elsewhere. Thank you for making the U.S. a little safer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You had a very high percentage of gun owners in the early 1900's up till 1920.
Complete bollocks.
...as is the suggestion that your "armed citizens" could hold the US military at bay. (covered in an earlier post)
...as is the suggestion that our government can do what it likes and we are powerless to resist. (also covered in an earlier post)
-
please explain to me how you arrived at the conclussion that an unpopular government could subjugate an armed population in the U.S.?
I hope that you are not using waco or ruby ridge as an example?
An example of how the government is powerless is better served with the world trade center and Ok. city federal building and... armed bank robbers all across the country.
even so... all of the above examples are when we have a fairly popular government... now imagine that half the army and half the population wants the government out and the government has suspended elections.
Better look up the number of guns in england per capita (especialy london) before 1920 beetle.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
please explain to me how you arrived at the conclussion that an unpopular government could subjugate an armed population in the U.S.?
I've already done that, in other threads, and further up in this thread. I'm not going to retype everything 500 times.
-
And I have proven every single time (and again above) that you are wrong and shortsighted on the subject.
it is apparent that revolution works in modern times... it is also apparent that armed citizens can defeat an unpopular government... sometimes against allomost inconcievably overwhelming odds (vietnam)..
It is also apparent that even a strong popular government like ours can not protect us from acts of terrorism or revolt. So how could they stop a popular revolt? they couldn't.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And I have proven every single time (and again above) that you are wrong and shortsighted on the subject.
No, your post above proved nothing. It merely asked a question.
Waco? That wasn't going to be my example, but why shouldn't it be? It is also apparent that even a strong popular government like ours
The Bush administration is "strong"? I seem to remember that the Bush victory was the most closely run election the US has ever seen in modern times, and was decided by a relative handful of votes in Florida. And I have proven every single time (and again above) that you are wrong and shortsighted on the subject.
No, and people from at least 16 different countries would disagree with you. Right now, you've turned your attention from England and Bermuda to try your luck with New Zealand. I notice you're getting some of the same answers.
-
wrong... the newzealanders turned their attention to me. I have no interest in their crime rate or country except for a possible visit.
You are correct about getting some of the same answers tho... one guy in nz is so brainwashed that he thinks his neighbors will go insane if given the freedom to own firearms... I think studying how someone gets that brainwashed would be a worthwhile study. meanwhile... the nz guy is enjoying twice the per capita burglary rate as people in the U.S. are... strange.
you can't use waco much because it was not a popular uprising.... it was an isolated group of a few people with the might of the entire government behind stopping them,
the current government is popular. the number of people willing to take up arms against it right now is extremely low.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
please explain to me how you arrived at the conclussion that an unpopular government could subjugate an armed population in the U.S.?
Please explain to me the circumstances under which such a conflict might arise.
-
who knows? martial law and suspension of elections due to terrorists threats... giving control of our country to foreighers thru the un or maybe some whacko environmental group... raising gas prices enough to colapse the economy and ensuing martial law. who knows.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The Bush administration is "strong"? I seem to remember that the Bush victory was the most closely run election the US has ever seen in modern times, and was decided by a relative handful of votes in Florida.
No. I think he's pointing out that the US system itself is strong and stable.
Yes, it was a VERY close election. Yes there was much angst, anger and heartburn on both sides.
But, unlike other places, there was no rioting or mobs running around in the street.
There was a non-stop Beechfest on television and in the print media but the whole thing was resolved pretty much the way the wise old guys that wrote up the Constitution provided.
It went to the highest court in the land, the justices decided and that was that.
No muss, no artillery, no rioting in the streets.
As long as that system works, there'll be no problem.
When the system doesn't work, well the wise old guys gave us the 2nd too.
And again I remind you that the US Military swears to defend the Constitution, not the President or the Congress or the Supreme Court. I think most of the military is well aware of the 2nd and probably view it much as Laz or I do.
After all, you don't get that many "gun antis" in the military. Some, but certainly not most.
-
Mr. T! Thank you for that explanation.
Originally posted by lazs2
raising gas prices enough to colapse the economy
We had that here in 2000. But it did not result in an armed uprising or military coup. A large band of protesters led by a Welsh farmer blockaded fuel depots so that tankers couldn't get out, except to deliver essential supplies. Been there, done that! :p
.PDF document describes the 2000 Peasants' Revolt (http://www.la-articles.org.uk/LA-6.pdf)
-
Your economy collapsed in 2000? I seem to have missed that whole event. That's what happens when you don't take a paper. heck... I was even over there at the time I think.... I even drove 1200 miles.
lazs
-
It has been bad. We need to get rid of Blair...
-
most Americans would not count a close election or a slump in the economy as being "tyranny". That stuff in 1770 or so was tho.
lazs