Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on October 18, 2004, 03:18:09 AM
-
Just got back from a walking trip with my brother in North Yorks. We stayed near Whitby. It was lovely! An area untouched by some of the negative aspects of "progress".
We headed back south on Saturday, picking up my brother's daughter from her uni lodgings in Nottingham before continuing to Winchester. My brother was just parking the Jaguar outside the house when a tatty car with two equally tatty male teenage occupants, clearly annoyed by the two seconds delay they had suffered as we were parking, drove past. The driver was wearing some gang type outfit, and made a rude hand gesture. Great. Welcome back to urban Britain, along with all the city crap that goes with it.
I was happy to see my niece, especially as she had recently walked home alone from the "Goose Fair" in Nottingham - a fun fair. Recently, a 14 year old girl was shot and killed walking home from the very same fair.
So on Sunday, I opened the paper to see this:
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/gunpic.gif)
The source of the article is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/17/ngun17.xml
The text is here, with certain passages that caught my eye highlighted.
As stories of innocents caught in crossfire fill the news, it's clear that gun crime has reached areas where recently it seemed unthinkable. Alasdair Palmer and Marco Nardini report
Croydon, Reading, the market town of Hoddesdon in Hertfordshire - these are not places one associates with gangs, drugs and murder. But they have all experienced drive-by killings in recent months.
News of such shootings has become depressingly familiar from places such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and London boroughs such as Hackney - which duly had the show of another drive-by shooting last week: this time, a car with two children in the back was sprayed with bullets. One of the children escaped injury. The other, an 18-month-old baby, was hit in the leg.
But drive-by shootings in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire? Unfortunately, yes - they now happen even there. A 15-year-old schoolboy was shot in the head outside his home in High Wycombe. The tentacles of gun and gang culture have, it seems, started to envelop places that might once have been thought immune.
There were more than 25,000 shootings and gun-related offences last year in England and Wales - which works out at more than 50 incidents a day. Last year's total was double that for 2002-2003. Surprisingly, the number of fatalities only increased from 81 to 97. The reason for that seems mostly to be luck: many of the guns in circulation are old weapons that have been re-conditioned and are extremely inaccurate. They are also fired by people who often don't know how or don't bother to aim properly. That is why victims are often not the intended target, but the men, women and children who happened to in the vicinity when the guns went off.
Provincial police forces are now discovering they have to deal with assassinations, and with the casualties caused when people get caught in the cross-fire. Danielle Beccan, 14, was one of those innocent bystanders. She was shot and killed in Nottingham last week walking home from a fun fair. A gunman in a passing car started spraying bullets from an automatic pistol. It isn't clear whom he was trying to kill, but he hit Danielle. She died in her mother's arms. A man appeared in court charged with the murder yesterday.
Since February 2002, Nottingham, which used to be a relatively quiet, provincial town, has seen nine adults shot dead. Two teenagers have been gunned down and an 11-year-old child was among the five youngsters wounded by gunfire. More than 50 people have suffered gunshot wounds, including a mother holding her 13-month-old baby.
Initially, the police force, which had no specialist firearms unit, and almost no experience of shootings, did not know how to respond. It did not help that Nottingham's force also had a reputation for incompetence: Nottinghamshire's police have been consistently rated as among the worst in the country by government inspectors. John Heppell, MP for Nottingham East, says the police "didn't solve things. They just tried to find someone to blame for them".
Nottinghamshire police now have a dedicated firearms unit. Steve Green, the chief constable, says that his force is the first outside London to mount armed foot patrols and that his officers have arrested more 340 people involved in drugs and guns.
Still, only one of the perpetrators of Nottingham's 11 gun killings has been arrested and convicted. Gun-related offences in the city are still rising. The town's police are attempting to learn from the experience of London's clampdown on gun crime, which has met with considerable success: last year, gun crime in the capital was down by 15 per cent. It was probably the only city in Britain to see a fall in the number of shootings.
How has it been achieved? "By tackling aggressively the seriously violent gangsters," explains Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown, who has responsibility for the Met's policy on gun crime. "This had a ripple effect. It has been appreciated within the black community, who were preyed upon by these men. It means our actions have gained a legitimacy in the eyes of people in the black community - so they are more willing to come to us with information. And that means it has been easier for us to find guns, and arrest those who use them."
He adds: "London has the advantage of having a significant armed response capability. We've got guns, and we are not afraid to use them. That sends a message to the gangsters: we won't be intimidated. They know we'll shoot if we have to. They have started to be afraid of us - which is the way it should be."
In many provincial towns now experiencing a wave of gun-related crime, it is the other way round: the police, unarmed and unused to dealing with ruthless and violent killers, are frightened of the gangsters.
"The recent spate of gun-related incidents in some of England's cities is attributable to the spread there of a very unpleasant gun culture," says Mr Brown. "It has come in with the cocaine dealers from Jamaica and the US. Rap music and the macho attitude play a significant part: you get boys as young as 13 who ape the older gangsters and think that any sign of 'disrespect' has to be avenged by shooting."
The procedure for shooting, especially among younger gangsters, is one most likely to hit innocent bystanders: it's a case of "ready, fire, aim".
Once one gang starts to carry guns, an arms race quickly develops: members of rival gangs feel that they won't be safe or "respected" unless they carry guns too. "A lot of the young boys seem to have this attitude of 'live fast, die young'," says Mr Brown. "And that's part of the problem. We need to give them a reason to think it will be worth their while to do something that means they have a good chance of staying alive well into old age."
The life expectancy of boys involved with guns and gangs is estimated by officers with the Greater Manchester Police to be as low as 24.
Nottinghamshire Police say their investigations have been hampered by the intimidation of witnesses. Derek Senior, a Nottingham Rastafarian who gave evidence that helped to convict four men who had attacked him, suffered an immediate reprisal: he was shot four times in his front drive (he survived). Jamaican-born Omar Watson was less fortunate: he was shot and killed while having a haircut before he was due to give evidence at the trial of two men accused of trying to shoot him in an earlier incident.
This problem is very widespread. Dozens of people saw teenagers Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis shot dead in Birmingham on January 2 2003 after they were caught in a gun battle between rival gans. Most refused to provide statements because they feared retribution from the killers. Marcia Shakespeare, Letisha's mother, found that when she put up posters appealing for witnesses to her daughter's murder, they were taken down. "The police can't do their job if they are faced with a brick wall," she says. "If no one is willing to stand up and be counted, the gangsters are going to do a lot worse. If it's my child today, it will be yours tomorrow."
(Article truncated for space)
So there it is. The more guns we have, the more crime we'll see. It really is that simple. As you can see from the figures at the top of the picture, we came very close to reaching 100 gun homicides in one twelve month period spanning 2003/04.
I'm hoping the police can act in time to prevent our annual gun related homicide tally from reaching a three digit value, but it might not be possible. Maybe it's time for an armed police force. I don't have any problem with that - all the other Euro police forces are armed. But one thing is clear to me: I don't want to see a guns free for all - a gun shop on every street corner and a five digit homicide rate - as can be seen in other parts of the world where a "guns-4-all" policy exists. In Britain, that is NOT the answer. If we did that, stories like the one above would be filling the local papers. The story above is bad enough at national level.
-
The norwegian police is not armed beetle, but they are debating it.
What kind of jag does your brother own?
-
Thanks for the great article beetle. You have convinced me, make the guns illegal and I'm sure the crimilnals will stop using them to kill people.
BTW didnt the UK just ban most sorts of handguns not too long ago?
-
cc GS but i think beetle ment that the police carry weapons.
-
Maybe it's time for an armed police force. I don't have any problem with that.
maybe its time for the death penalty for lesser crimes like murder.
-
Whitby is great, spent quite a bit of time there off and on, friend of mine lives there. Great pub down by the wharf, beer & fish n chips :D
...-Gixer
-
Whitby is a great place. Unlike Scarborough etc it hasn't been ruined by commercialism.
Beer, fish, chips and curry sauce. Can't beat it on a cold but sunny autumn day. Thinking of going up their in November for a cheap break. Little cottage, pub, girlfriend... you get the picture... ;)
Check out their kippers and other smoked fish - traditionally done in this one shop for hundreds of years. Best in Britain apparently.
BTW, Beetle - I am hoping to pick up a new Seat Ibiza FR TDi next month. Do you still drive your diesel?
-
I ve been a Police Officer for 15 years in Australia. 99% of that as an operational street copper. Now I train Police in operational safety including firearms, firearms retention, etc etc.
My hat is off to any Police Officer who will do this job without a firearm. I know for a fact I wouldnt. The Brits are to be respected in this regard. Their people are good. But negotiation will only get you so far and these days, its a short rope of tolerance out there on the street.
My personal opinion on the Bobby getting a gat on his belt, is do it now before you find its too late. Its been long overdue.
-
Ahem, Beet1e, this kind of article is really supporting Lazs's theory: with a strong gun control, the only armed guys are the bad ones (who don't follow the law anyway)... The article even points out that the only city to show a drop in gun crimes is London where more policemen are armed, know how to use their weapon and are not afraid to use them.
I've come to think that a concealed carry permit for citizens is a good thing IF the examination you need to pass to obtain this permit is thorough and not forgiving: no criminal past, theoretical handgun knowledge test, safe handling test, shooting test, basic tactics test, law knowledge test.
I don't want to see the average guy carrying a weapon. I may be cynical, but I believe that 75% of the population is stupid, clumsy or emotionally unstable.
-
So there it is. The more guns we have, the more crime we'll see. It really is that simple.
I'd love to see how you came to that conclusion based on the article you posted. The UK toughened up gun laws for law-abiding citizens and gun crime is now becoming a problem, where it wasn't before. The same experiment has been tried and failed in dozens of US cities.
ra
-
Gun ban laws only help one part of society, the criminal. They just deny the individual self defense and make it that much easier for the bad guys.
Criminals don`t abide by the law, so all the laws passed in the world banning/controlling guns means diddly squat to them other than it makes their life much easier.
Welcome to the real world. Arm yourself or be subject to becoming one of the victim statistics.
Burying your head in the sand only makes it easier for a predator to consume you.
BTW, the "Saturday Night Special" depicted in the picture is fantastic way to piss someone off enough to take your head off.
-
"He adds: "London has the advantage of having a significant armed response capability. We've got guns, and we are not afraid to use them. That sends a message to the gangsters: we won't be intimidated. They know we'll shoot if we have to. They have started to be afraid of us - which is the way it should be."
Ya know... that is exactly how we feel in most cities in the U.S.
Well.... thank you beet for proveing just about everything I have said about guns and gun laws.
Seriously... would it bother you to know I was carrying concealed around you or your neice? Would you feel safer or less safe?
Criminals don't stay in the ghetto... it spills over to the nightclubs and such where they spend their drug money.
deseleys... you really don't have to worry about 75% of the population that you feel is too stupid to carry guns since it is pretty much established that if you had unlimited concealled carry permit issue that only about 10% of the law abidinng population would carry anyway....
beet... that is a nice PPK in the add... and... At least you will not be one of those who "spray" bullets around.... See.... I taught you a valuable skill.
in conclusion... it would be better if 100 people got shot... so long as they were the right people that were shot.
oh well.... maybe a "guns for crack" turn in would work? maybe hiding under the bed? well... I'm out of ideas...
lazs
-
Note how, at least in that articles pictures most of the victims are black or otherwise dark skinned... Do the overall statiscics mirror this pattern?
-
There is no way that we could run that add as it is here in the states. You could not show that many colored people and guns together... It would be "racist" england is just about 10 or 20 years behind us as usual.
why is it that armed cops are now a good thing? why is it a good thing if the criminals guns outnumber the good guys guns? I predict that just like here... cops being armed won't be enough.
lazs
-
The only problem with the article is, they seem to have made up the numbers.
There were more than 25,000 shootings and gun-related offences last year in England and Wales - which works out at more than 50 incidents a day. Last year's total was double that for 2002-2003.
I suspect they've added the air eapons figures to the firearms figures for this year to get that number.
From the Home Office figures on crime in Britain 2003/2004:
The changes in both homicides and firearm offences were small in 2003/04: there was an
increase of less than one per cent in firearm offences, and a fall of around two per cent in
homicides (after excluding retrospectively recorded Harold Shipman murders from the
2002/03 total).
In 2003/04 there were a provisional 10,340 firearm offences in England and Wales. This was
an increase of less than one per cent since 2002/03 (Figure 5.6). The number of offences has
risen each year since 1997/98, but the 2003/04 rise is the smallest.
The full figures for this year aren't out yet, but the air weapons figures for last year were just under 14,000, so add them to the 10,000 firearms offence figures and it's pretty easy to see where the 25,000 figure comes from.
Surprisingly, the number of fatalities only increased from 81 to 97.
2000-01 19 deaths
2001-02 49 deaths
2002-03 81 deaths
2003-04 97 deaths
I'd really like to know where those figures come from, because they appear to be entirely made up.
I've got the Home Office figures from 2002, and they are:
2000-01 64
2001-02 90
The Home Office figures from 2004 are:
2000-01 63
2001-02 92
2002-03 58
Those figures are from the murder statistics. They count cases where someone was murdered with a firearm.
There is a second set of figures, under the firearms offences section, which counts cases where a firearm was involved in a murder, but not necasarily as the murder weapon (for instance, two men carry out a robbing, one pulls a gun, one pulls a knife, the one with a knife stabs someone who dies, the gun is counted in this table, not in the first one). This table also includes crossbows, and cases where someone is battered to death with a gun, rather than being shot.
2000-01 73
2001-02 97
2002-03 81
2003-04 68
Where the Telegraph's figures come from, I don't know. They vastly understate the early years, and appear to have swapped 2002's figures for this year's.
I can provide the sources (fairly large pdfs) to anyone who wants to check the figures.
-
I think the figure for 2000-01 is 29, not 19. And that is England and Wales.
I think there are bars in the US that have a higher gun crime rate.
-
If the UN has it's way there will be no private ownership of guns and you can rest easy beet1e. This will have the added benefit of there being far fewer live Americans as many will be lying around with their cold dead fingers pried open.
-
What a racist article. Don't guns kill white people too?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
75% of the population is stupid, clumsy or emotionally unstable.
This pretty much sums up the attitude of the typical anti gun person and government. IMO.
There is no need for the incapable to be able to handle adult responsibility. They must be protected from themselves since they are not able to be responsible for themselves.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
I believe that 75% of the population is stupid, clumsy or emotionally unstable.
But you are not in that group, correct?
Thankfully the great unwashed masses have the superior, intelligent, chattering class people like you to guide, protect and make major decisions for them!!
Why are they not greatful????
:rolleyes:
-
Nilsen - my brother's Jag. is a 2003 X-Type 2.5.
Dowding - yep, still driving my diesel - just had the first tax disc renewal. How time flies...
Gixer/Dowding - Yeah, Whitby was great. Also Pickering and Helmesley.
Originally posted by deSelys
Ahem, Beet1e, this kind of article is really supporting Lazs's theory: with a strong gun control, the only armed guys are the bad ones (who don't follow the law anyway)... The article even points out that the only city to show a drop in gun crimes is London where more policemen are armed, know how to use their weapon and are not afraid to use them.
No. I said I had nothing against having an armed Police force. That's the way it is in most Euro countries, and most of those countries have very little gun crime, the reason being that handguns are not generally available to the public. What I DID say was that I am not in favour of arming the general public. That would lead to a much more ready supply of guns - either for purchase or by theft. We would then end up with a gun-related homicide tally of 3000/year - a similar proportion to certain other countries I could mention.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
This pretty much sums up the attitude of the typical anti gun person and government. IMO.
There is no need for the incapable to be able to handle adult responsibility. They must be protected from themselves since they are not able to be responsible for themselves.
Sorry Maverick, but I stand my ground. Look at the behaviour of your fellow citizens while driving, and tell me if they consistently act intelligently, competently and responsibly.
A gun is no joke, and its use is not to be considered lightly.
Originally posted by Grunherz
But you are not in that group, correct?
Thankfully the great unwashed masses have the superior, intelligent, chattering class people like you to guide, protect and make major decisions for them!!
Why are they not greatful????
I'm certainly not a genius, but I've been selected, I've been trained, and I've demonstrated that I can handle a weapon with the required safety, coolness and competence. So, in this field, I'm certainly above 75% of the population.
You should also have understood by now in which percentage band I consider you to be. Thank you for somewhat proving my point.
Added for clarification: this is about a concealed carry permit. For an ownership permit (at home and shooting at the range), the rules don't need to be so strict IMO.
-
deSelys,
I agree with most of your post other than the 75% part. I don't share this feeling and I am offended that another group, beit private, public or government thinks they know better than I how to live. This includes what I should own or can be "trusted" with absent any wrong doing on my part. The mindset that is built on "I know better than you how to live your life" has in it the ability to seperate themselves from the same population whitout any reason for having done so. It violates the premise of innocent until proven guilty and all men are created equal.
Unless I decide to give authority to another to manage my life I feel I am best qualified to determine how I will live it.
Government is not based on granting rights but on restricting peoples actions. A government cannot grant permission, only restrict it. Using your example of driving, there is no "right" to operate a motor vehicle, this "priveledge" (government term) can be revoked and is done so based on misdeeds by the person whose license is in question, not on potential misdeeds. If you want to base permission or priveledges on potentiality then everyone is a potential murderer, thief or other criminal and therefore must be incarcerated for their own good. Now who is going to hold the key to the cell?
-
Maverick,
Read again what I said. People who would pass the test would be granted the priviledge to carry a weapon. But the test would requires such skills and knowledge that it wouldn't be available to most.
A gun allows you to protect yourself or others, but by using it (or even showing it), you can harm innocent bystanders. I remember one of my first 'movie shooting' training (where your have to solve a scenario, not always with your gun) where the bad guy draws a wheelgun in a bar. I instinctively point and shoot...the movie stops still and the examiner shows me the background...crowded as hell. During a simple exercise, I had had a bad case of tunnel vision. It was a real eye opener (btw I missed the thug :o. Had I reacted like this in RL I would have just caused a shootout in a crowded place).
Concealed carry should be accessible to a selected part of the law abiding citizens, like other licenses. For instance, do you think that, if the training was free and open to everyone, everybody could be a liner pilot? I don't think so, and I doubt I could become one.
-
thank you maverick... I think your attitude best describes the attitude of the police I know... I have the opportununity to talk to probly a hundred of them and they share your (and my) attitude about law abiding citizens.
deseleys is also correct in that in order to carry concealled I think that people should be made to demonstrate an ability to handle firearms safely and be aware of legal ramifications.
Other than that... there really is no problem since it has been demonstrated that only about 10% of the law abiding population will avail themselves of concealled carry no matter how enlightened the laws are.
Beet... are you saying that the criminals are not shooting more people because.... because they can't get guns? I would contend that they can get all the guns they want despite your laws but.... that the penalties for using guns are high in your country so only the most desperate use them... I think this is a good thing and would encourage the stricter penalties here.
more penalties for criminals using guns... less penalties for the law abiding owning and carrying (keep and bear) guns...
win/win
lazs
lazs
-
You know, I just had a thought that would make a great bumper sticker, "When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns."
I wonder why no one thought of that before.
-
They do have those stickers :)
-
Hmmm 7 or 8 out of 9 are black in that ad. Lazs is right, Jessie Jackson would be up in arms, blaming white America for everything and calling the article racist.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What I DID say was that I am not in favour of arming the general public. That would lead to a much more ready supply of guns - either for purchase or by theft. [/B]
What you have without it is a ready made business for organized crime and for the penny annie thug for the selling of illegal weapons.
By the way some people express their beliefs it comes clear that they have it in mind that criminals run down to Joe`s Shootem Up Gun Emporium to purchase the shootin irons. It just don`t happen like that .
-
deSelys,
I am not disputing in the least the arguement you have regarding CCw and training. We are pretty much in the same area there.
What I am disputing is the 75% comment you made.
The second point is that 75% attitude is what most antigun folks have. People cannot be trusted to be responsible so therefore the government must protect them from themselves.
I find this to be repugnant. I do not see where a committee (a life form with multiple legs and no brain) is intrinsically better equiped to "protect" individuals from their own actions.
-
Everyone - the picture in the newspaper is not an "ad", and is certainly not a "racist ad". The people depicted in it are those who were actually the victims of a gun, and not just randomly selected faces. But yes, most of them are from ethnic minorities, and ethnic minorities are drawn to large urban areas or cities, and not places like Whitby/Pickering. Crime/drugs/guns are much more prevalent in the poorer parts of our big cities, so the fact that there so many non Caucasians amongst the victims is not a coincidence.
Originally posted by lazs2
Beet... are you saying that the criminals are not shooting more people because.... because they can't get guns? I would contend that they can get all the guns they want despite your laws but.... that the penalties for using guns are high in your country so only the most desperate use them...
Yes, that's pretty much it. There is a mandatory five year jail sentence for possession of a gun. If it were easier for criminals to get their hands on guns like the ones in your big green safe, I am convinced we would have many more gun homicides. I've said that all along. The fact is that criminals are thwarted in their attempts to get guns because even the law abiding don't have them and therefore there are none to steal, and none for "law abiding" people to sell on the black market at a huge profit. Also, various amnesties have removed tens of thousands of guns from circulation. So it's difficult for criminals to get guns, but certainly not impossible. The fact that there are no retail outlets for handguns (and the penalties for possession) explain why there are relatively few handguns in circulation.
Now here's one for you: How could a 14 year old girl have defended herself when walking home from a fun fair? Are you suggesting that things would have been different if she had had a gun? Do you believe in arming 14 year olds with handguns? Is that allowed where you live? If that were allowed, chances are she'd get mugged for it. People have been mugged/killed for far less - Rolex watches and mobile phones, for example.
-
that story is fake , it can't be true, there are no guns in england, the govt baned guns a long time ago.
-
maverick.... thank you again for stateing the obvious.. I edon't beleive 76% of people are too dumb to own firearms... I am probly pretty dumb myself... certainly I am not one of the top 25% elite.
Beet... thanks for proving my point... Obviously the 5 year sentance is a lot more thought provolking to the criminal than the fact that getting guns in england may cast twice as much than it would say... here. big deal... even if it cost $1000 for a gun that is nothing to a criminal. It is the penalty for using it that is the deterent.
I am not against deterents for using a gun in a crime... only against penalties for law abiding citizens owning firearms.
lazs
-
The only thing racist about that article is assuming the color of their skin has anything to do it.
-
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear
rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because
of the punishment that it brings than because of its own
foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
"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.
"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
-
I'm shocked that most of the victims appear to be black. Yeah, blame it on the guns.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The only thing racist about that article is assuming the color of their skin has anything to do it.
Well said!
-
BTW Beetle your article only serves to support our contention that gun control laws don't work.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So there it is. The more guns we have, the more crime we'll see. It really is that simple.
There's a word you need to look up in the dictionary. It's called "causality".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Beet... thanks for proving my point... Obviously the 5 year sentance is a lot more thought provolking to the criminal than the fact that getting guns in england may cast twice as much than it would say... here. big deal... even if it cost $1000 for a gun that is nothing to a criminal. It is the penalty for using it that is the deterent.
Well, yes and no. Hopefully the 5 year sentence is a deterrent to people thinking of acquiring a gun. The penalties for using it would be much greater, especially if people were shot and injured or killed. But people are shot and killed, and that shows they're not deterred by the 5 year jail sentence for possession, or even a life sentence for murder. I don't know what drives such people, other than the possibility that their minds are so fried by drugs that they don't know what they're doing.
I know you'd like to live in a society where only the law abiding had guns, and where they were out of the reach of criminals. Anyone who believes that such a scenario is possible is living in a fool's paradise.
Footnote on the 14 year old girl shot and killed in Nottingham: A 20 year old man has been charged with her murder, and two others are in custody.
Lazs, you never answered my earlier questions about whether 14 year olds should be armed when they attend funfairs.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
BTW Beetle your article only serves to support our contention that gun control laws don't work.
You're wrong. They do work. But like any other law you care to mention, they do not work perfectly. Just look at your immigration laws, for example. What are you advocating? A repeal of all laws that do not work 100% perfectly? Your country would be back to the days of the Wild West...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The only thing racist about that article is assuming the color of their skin has anything to do it.
True... it's mostly poor depressed neighborhoods; which is where minorities happen to live. Poor does not necessarily mean only a minority either.
The number of gun deaths in the states is high; granted. However, I beleive the urban/suburban/rural statistcis would be close. Most of the gun violence and deaths occur between minorities and in poor or depressed areas.
-
sorry beet... I thought I did answer your question about the 14 year old...
I answered it with another question. Mt question was... would you feel more secure or less secure if I were armed.
To make it simpler.... would you feel more secure or less secure for you and your niece if I were carrying concealed at your fair? How bout if maybe 5% of the law abiding citizens attending the fair were? How bout if the criminals knew that 5% of the citizens there were?
I agree that harsh penalties will not deter the most vicious and ruthless of criminals.... fortunately they are a very small minority even as criminals go but.... not only do harsh penalties not deter them but.... as you can see.... making it a tiny bit harder for them to aquire a firearm doesn't seem to stop em either. Only a bullet will stop most of em.
lazs
-
The fact is that criminals are thwarted in their attempts to get guns because even the law abiding don't have them and therefore there are none to steal, and none for "law abiding" people to sell on the black market at a huge profit.
If a person sells a gun on the black market they are not law abiding.
Lazs, you never answered my earlier questions about whether 14 year olds should be armed when they attend funfairs
That statement is pretty rediculous, children should not carry weapons, I think we all know that already.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
To make it simpler.... would you feel more secure or less secure for you and your niece if I were carrying concealed at your fair? How bout if maybe 5% of the law abiding citizens attending the fair were? How bout if the criminals knew that 5% of the citizens there were?
What needs to be remembered is that if you or any other guy (5% of the guys at the fair) had access to weapons, it follows that said weapons are freely available - available for the law abiding to buy, available for the criminals to steal. You could be mugged for your gun. Don't say it couldn't happen. Even in your country, the staff in prisons are not allowed to be carrying their guns in certain parts of those prisons for that very reason. Short answer: I would feel less secure. So would many others. That's why many folks on this BBS would agree that their chances of being shot in the US are much higher than for being shot in their home countries. If a person sells a gun on the black market they are not law abiding.
That's why I put it in quotes. :rolleyes:
-
Beetle you amaze me. Basically that article proves that armed response deters criminals, yet you are against the very thing that deters them......
Every state that has passed a concealed carry law here in the US has seen a reduction in violent crime. States and cities that keep making guns harder or impossible to get see crime rates go up. US Justice Dept. statistics support this.
You seem to think that the more guns that are available to law abiding citizens equates to more gun deaths. Interesting that here in the US the opposite is true.
-
Mugged for your gun Beetle? :rofl
If I was carrying a gun, and you tryed to mug me, dont you think you run a very high risk of being shot?
-
One last thought, then I am out of this thread.
There has always been crime, there will always be crime. Police can't be everywhere all the time. Imo, each and every human being has the right to defend themselves against those that would make us victims. A club doesnt do much to deter criminals when the criminals have firearms.
There will also always be firearms, whether they are made in a factory or in someone's basement, whether they are sold in a store or on the black market.
-
There's absolutely no handgun crime in England.
Don't you guys realize that they made hanguns illegal in England? What more proof do you need?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Mugged for your gun Beetle? :rofl
If I was carrying a gun, and you tryed to mug me, dont you think you run a very high risk of being shot?
if the mugger gives you a chance to pull your gun, he's not that good at mugging, now is he?
-
aren't you afraid that the cops will get mugged and have their guns taken away.?
lazs
-
last word before i leave, since your all fully aware of my stance on gun control.
700 years ago, everyone carried a sword and could use it. crime still happened. all arming the populace did was make criminals more carefull about who and how they worked. if you arm everyone to the teeth, youll just see criminals commiting different crimes that are less likely to get them shot (for example, it takes less than 30 seconds to steal a car, and can take as little as 5 minutes to rob a house.)
-
I find it funny that beetle has posted an "article" that in no way/shape/form supports his fundamental anti-gun argument. The only help he seems to be getting on the subject was someone claiming the numbers in the article seemed to be wrong.
Lazs, you should be ashamed of yourself here. You've dominated this debate to the point that your "opponents" have turned into senseless baffoons. Well... maybe "turned into" is the wrong way to put it.
-
The only help he seems to be getting on the subject was someone claiming the numbers in the article seemed to be wrong.
You seem to be the only one who noticed that.
What I find funny is some Americans claiming Britain's 68 gun murders last year prove gun control doesn't work, but America's 10,000 gun murders a year prove more guns = less crime.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
You seem to be the only one who noticed that.
What I find funny is some Americans claiming Britain's 68 gun murders last year prove gun control doesn't work, but America's 10,000 gun murders a year prove more guns = less crime.
have you adjusted for population?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
You seem to think that the more guns that are available to law abiding citizens equates to more gun deaths. Interesting that here in the US the opposite is true.
I wasn't talking about the US. The article I posted is about Britain. I think I mentioned that in the thread title?
We don't have the insane situation whereby anyone can have a gun for no better a reason than the fact that he wants one. Read Nashwan's comment from 11:23pm. Your country has more than 100 times as many gun homicides as we do, but your population is only about 4½ times the size of ours. I think that speaks for itself. But just in case you still don't get it, let me spell it out: It's because of our gun control laws, imperfect though things may be, that we still have fewer than 100 gun related homicides annually. And it's because you guys allow so many guns into circulation that you have 10,000 gun related homicides annually. If I was carrying a gun, and you tryed to mug me, dont you think you run a very high risk of being shot?
OK, consider this. The British police are routinely unarmed. And yet very few are killed in the line of duty. In 2003, only one was shot and killed (by an American fugitive of Florida justice). And yet, despite being heavily armed with all manner of guns, pepper sprays, tasers, the works - around 70 US police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. Go figure. And remember - these were trained guys. I rather think that the average gun toting civilian would be a somewhat softer target.
Elfie says he's gone, but I bet he comes back for more. ;)
-
True... it's mostly poor depressed neighborhoods; which is where minorities happen to live
ROFL. Where is MT now? the above is the most stereotypical/racist remark in this thread.
-
Arming Police, I agree with. Arming the population? Well thats idiocy. (no further comment needed).
Police have a duty of care to protect life. There are disciplines and penalties that exceed simple firearms training in place to act as a checkfire in the "majority of instances"
There is no arguement that sometimes, its the Police officers who have gotten the use of deadly force wrong. They are after all, only human and prone to the same emotional and conditional responses as with us all. They do however have a high level of training in not only firearms but in other use of force options including conflict de-escalation.
Much of this training is neither present or deemed necessary in a countries population.
Escalate force and it will be met with the escalation of force. The crucial element missing from Joe Citizen, is proper training and the checks sum penalties in place to prevent the unnecessary use of force.
Prison alone doesnt work. Otherwise they would be empty of supposed innocents. Emotions control an individuals actions.
True not many would want (hopefully) to use a firearm on another person, but it could be said that not many would not know how to avoid using one either.
Criminals accept that they will be opposed by a Police force. They accept that force will be met with force. They do not accept being met with force by the population. They simply seek bigger and better to escalate an already impossibly out of control population as you now have in the United States.
There is no convincing many of you as you have known nothing else and the convience of your constitution gives you the protection to hide blissfully unaware and adamant, behind.
-
They simply seek bigger and better to escalate an already impossibly out of control population as you now have in the United States.
Oh my!! out of control???? I better close my windows and take the keys out of the two vehicles I have in the driveway, board my windows. Oh nooo!!!!! Out of control!!!!
-
Originally posted by Steve
Oh my!! out of control???? I better close my windows and take the keys out of the two vehicles I have in the driveway, board my windows. Oh nooo!!!!! Out of control!!!!
Why would you leave your keys in the car, even in a safe neigborhood??
-
There are towns in the USA where every household has at least one firearm and it is illegal for the police to carry guns.
-
Why would you leave your keys in the car, even in a safe neigborhood??
I always know where to find them. I leave the keys in all my vehicles, it's just that 3 of them are garaged.
-
Jesus, does this argument ever go away?
1. There are so many guns in circulation in the USA and ownership is so culturally engrained that gun-control for the purpose of reducing gun-related deaths would be a pointless measure. Gun ownership for self-defense thus becomes a logical consequence.
2. In the case of the UK, there are are still relatively few guns in circulation and indeed this was also the case prior to the handgun ban. Controls restrict the supply and keep black market prices relatively high.
3. Blanket comparisons between the two cases are basically nonsensical. The US is basically screwed when it comes to firearms in the hands of criminals, so arming the general populace makes some sense from this perspective. The UK however is by and large a lot less screwed, so the mothod of containment for the problem, i.e. reducing the supply, makes a lot more sense.
4.The two main protagonists in this ongoing discussion are either trolling or idiots for not getting point 3.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The only thing racist about that article is assuming the color of their skin has anything to do it.
Originally posted by Curval
Well said!
I slightly disagree. Race may have been a factor in the choice of example photos to accompany the article. If the photos do not mirror the actual racial and gender make-up of the cross section of crime victims, racism and indeed sexism may have occured.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Race may have been a factor in the choice of example photos to accompany the article. If the photos do not mirror the actual racial and gender make-up of the cross section of crime victims, racism and indeed sexism may have occured.
Again, the photos are not random selections. These are the the pictures of the people who were actually shot.
Steve - you leave the keys in your cars? Check your insurance. Over here, if your car is stolen and you left the key inside it, the insurance company has no obligation to make good your loss.
Nashwan said "What I find funny is some Americans claiming Britain's 68 gun murders last year prove gun control doesn't work, but America's 10,000 gun murders a year prove more guns = less crime." Brilliant! And too good to be read only once. Sig. material. I wish I could think up these one liners! :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Again, the photos are not random selections. These are the the pictures of the people who were actually shot.
I understand that... according to the graphic some 246 were killed. But the only way that the writer of the article could be considered racially and gender bias free is if the ratio of those depicted in the representative photographs precisely reflect the makeup of the larger population of gunshot victims.
-
Umm, yeah Spook. Taking away guns from your citizens really helped your crime rate over there didn't it. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
You seem to be the only one who noticed that.
What I find funny is some Americans claiming Britain's 68 gun murders last year prove gun control doesn't work, but America's 10,000 gun murders a year prove more guns = less crime.
Ah... so you have to completely dismiss the article to make a point?
I guess you didn't read the 10,000 (2002) vs 25,000 (2003) numbers in the article? The article posted shows a rappid increase in gun related crimes despite guns being illegal. To argue alongside beetle in this one, you have to be completely ignorant of what the article is saying.
But stick to that "68" number... especially since it looks better than that "97" number quoted in the article.
Hey... how many gun-crime related deaths were there anually before you guys banned them? I seem to remember it was around 100?
Feel free to chose to compare your numbers to those in the U.S. It's really the only sliver of an argument you have left. It seems that comparing the pre-ban to post-ban numbers in the UK will no longer work for you. I just find it funny that you are still blindly flailing away with that one. And I find it funny that beetle posts an article that makes both of you look like baffoons for resorting to it. And finally, I find it funny that neither of you seemingly get it.
-
vort... there is evidence that there was less crime in england when everyone was armed with swards than when the swords were outlawed.
sc spook... I don't think that what you feel is correct. In australia it may work for you on a personal level. you may think that you are elite and that you are safer with an unarmed population.
Here... the facts don't bear out your theory. citizens with concealled carry permits are not causeing any problems whatsoever. out of the 10 million or so that have permits not one has been convicted of a wrongful death. Perhaps australians are a different breed and less responsible than Americans?
I bet I know more about guns... am a better shot than you and am safer with them than you I bet I shoot more rounds a year than you.... and... I bet that most concealled carry holders are about like me. An australlian citizen would probly be better off if I had a gun and was helping him than if you did.... I at least give the guy credit for some brains while you look down your nose at him.
lazs
-
You boys have some problems.
And im not talking about the guns.
-
scspook.... you are the one who doesn't trust his own countrymen.... I would say it is you that has the problem... don't they give cops psyc tests down there?
To an American, your elite crap is really really annoying.
beet... I* believe the incident with you in the car and the thugs was partially your fault. YU did not take my advise. I will bet that you were not wearing gloves were you? the thugs got one look at your royal, effeminate hands and instantly pegged you for the upper class scum that you are and their reaction was.... predictable.... Now wear them gloves when you are out!
lazs
-
Just a couple points I'd like to make here.
1. Anyone who thinks that mere elimination of firearms will make crime go away is the one living in a fools paradise. Criminals prey (use of term is deliberate and accurate) on those who are incapable or unlikely to resist. When the vast majority of victim population is unarmed or unable to resist the risk factor for the criminal goes dramatically down.
2. Spook, non police members are somehow not worthy of having a firearm? What about myself then? I WAS a police officer, so now I cannot be trusted with a weapon since I'm out of that group?? Just what group does your nation draw it's officers from? Doesn't it draw them from the general population?? If so then what makes them suddenly worth of handling a firearm, magic transmutation??? If they were unworthy or unable to handle a weapon before due to being in the general population they they would have the same "qualities" after being in the department. They are still the same people.
What other items would the general population be restricted from having since they are so inept? Who gets to decide and what utopian population did the decision makers decend from to qualifiy them to decide for the general population?
-
I guess you didn't read the 10,000 (2002) vs 25,000 (2003) numbers in the article? The article posted shows a rappid increase in gun related crimes despite guns being illegal.
The only problem is, they've made up the figures. From the official crime statistics:
"The changes in both homicides and firearm offences were small in 2003/04: there was an increase of less than one per cent in firearm offences, and a fall of around two per cent in homicides (after excluding retrospectively recorded Harold Shipman murders from the 2002/03 total)."
and
"In 2003/04 there were a provisional 10,340 firearm offences in England and Wales. This was an increase of less than one per cent since 2002/03 (Figure 5.6). The number of offences has risen each year since 1997/98, but the 2003/04 rise is the smallest."
The only way to get the figures up to 25,000 is to add the air gun crimes to the firearms crimes. Firearms crimes were just over 10,000, air gun crimes just over 14,000.
What they've done is take the previous year's figures for firearms crimes, and 2003's figures for firearms crimes AND air gun crimes, and lump them together.
But stick to that "68" number... especially since it looks better than that "97" number quoted in the article.
The "97" number is wrong, plain and simple. Again, the official statistics:
2000-01 73
2001-02 97
2002-03 81
2003-04 68
You can get the official crime statistics at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf
Mind you, it still sounds the same even if you use the (false) 97 figure:
"What I find funny is some Americans claiming Britain's 97 gun murders last year prove gun control doesn't work, but America's 10,000 gun murders a year prove more guns = less crime."
Using the real figure, 147 times as many people were murdered with a gun in the US. Using the false figure, it's still 103 times as many.
It seems that comparing the pre-ban to post-ban numbers in the UK will no longer work for you. I just find it funny that you are still blindly flailing away with that one.
I've never supported the virtual ban on handguns in the UK. It was silly, because we already had very good gun controls before that.
My position is that gun control is much better than the virtual free for all in the US. The 68 to 10,000 firearms murder figure would seem to support that.
-
It's really ok by me if you folks in UK don't want any guns but you probably shouldn't expect us to watch your borders and prevent smuggling. It's even ok if you think we in the US or the rest of the world should follow suit. You can even expect us to take you seriously. Give up your guns all you want, no problem, try to take our guns though and there will be trouble.
-
yes to nai ! away with gone ! and Norway out of the country !
give me a drink i need it after reading this hehe :D
-
I think Nashwan has covered the stats. Gun crimes are up, but the report says that a crime is sometimes committed even if a gun is not fired - eg. used to threaten - that is still a gun crime.
I have seen folks point to "a 20% increase in Britain's gun homicides since the 1997 ban" (not in this particular thread, but in one of the many others) and seize upon this in a limpwristed attempt to make a "point" and citing it as a "trend", when in fact all we have seen is year on year fluctuations - an increase from 50 to 60, for example. However bad Britain's gun crime record is right now, it's still minute when compared to the US, and is much too small for an adequate level of sampling data to be available to determine a trend.
And as Nashwan points out, you can slice it, dice it, splice it, spin it, but whichever way you cut it, 147 times as many people were victims of firearms homicide in the US as here.
But this is off topic! My original point in this thread was to express my observation that the more guns we have in Britain, the more gun crime we'll have. No need to examine the relationship in any more depth.
We can already see what happens to the homicide rate when a country is flooded with guns. Well, at least some of us can. I guess others never will.
-
Man, I can't wait till I can strap on the full size 1911 in a shoulder harnass.
-
Originally posted by Steve
ROFL. Where is MT now? the above is the most stereotypical/racist remark in this thread.
Racist? Racist to state facts? A majority of minorities do live in poor neighborhoods.
Climb down off the PC ladder...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
you can slice it, dice it, splice it, spin it, but whichever way you cut it,
...the English ban on handguns didn't do much of anything at all. It was just another member-stroking feel-good political BS move.
You're welcome. Glad to explain it for ya.
-
ok guys... sure it's fun kicking the crap outa the uptight anti gun nuts and I'm as guilty as the rest but....
they are sick individuals that need your sympathy in order to recover... you are just pushing them deeper into their shells.
lazs
-
Mav. Theres a difference that even you must see without my having to explain it.
You said it. Your an ex-cop. Therefore you have the training im talking about which as you must know, encompasses far more than sequence of firing shots, yada yada yada. You have training in the package that deals with conflict resolution by means of deadly force or not.
Your civvie friends as a whole do not.
Its not about trust. Its about training.
You can still be joe citizen and be a member of a licenced gun club which teaches discipline. You just shouldnt have the dam* thing at home or in your car.
If its so safe over there. Why do you feel the need to carry them?
There is only 1 answer no matter which way, Laz and his NRA mates put a spin on it.
You are afraid of the very population that you place on a pedestal.
Im not anti- US citizen. In fact im very Pro- US. Neither am I some bleeding heart liberal. Im just calling it as I and many others see it.
I know despite the majority of the public here no longer having firearms without legal reason to do so, that I feel much safer here than I would living in your 10 year old Uzi toting country.
No, I dont think the US is like that as a generalisation. But you do have some whacked out areas in the states that are a direct result of your Gun policy.
Heh, Id love to visit one day. In fact I will. But cop or not, training or not. Ill be keeping the eyes in the back of my head open in some parts of your fine country.
If you ever break this constitutional catch 22 you guys have developed, you will find that I and others speak the truth. You dont need them and as long as you do have them, your a bigger danger to yourselves than from anyone on the outside.
-
It's really ok by me if you folks in UK don't want any guns but you probably shouldn't expect us to watch your borders and prevent smuggling. It's even ok if you think we in the US or the rest of the world should follow suit. You can even expect us to take you seriously. Give up your guns all you want, no problem, try to take our guns though and there will be trouble.
You really are one for over-blown, tired old rhetoric. Nashwan refutes the 'facts' of that article and you break out the Charlton Heston impersonation. Lame. I'm not entirely sure how the two are connected.
Here's a few pointers. Firstly, drop the "our armed populace is covering your asses" nonsense. I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to say there, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And secondly, your paranoid assumptions that anyone in Britain would want to take away your guns is inane at best.
"The UN is coming! The UN is coming! Go get your six shooter!"
Oh pur-leeze.
-
LOL! gotcha nashwan... but you do still realize your not really defending what beetle was saying, but resorting to an entirely different argument because the article beetle was posting to support his statements was wrong... right?
Of course, you're both just rambling away anyways. I still find that incredibly funny.
And lazs.. .give up on spook. He firmly believes he should be entitled to a gun AND be able to decide that everyone else isn't. It reminds me of that police chief and mayor in california.
-
mini, of course but I think his attitude is generally where Americans and UK subjects differ so much... they feel that only a few elite should have privlidges since the common man is incapable of making the simplest deciisions whereas Americans feel all men are equal and should be treated as such under the law.
spook is full of how he "feels" and "common sense" and his own self worth but in this case at least ....
the facts make him into a buffon... and rightly so.... the 10 million or so concealled carry citizens in this country have been nothing but an asset... they are perhaps the most law abiding and careful group in the nation... they have less accidents and unlawful shoots than the cops (who I respect greatly).
I would say to spook or any man here who thinks that the vast majority of citizens of any country are too stupid or too clumsy or too crazy to be capable of owning and safely handling firearms.... I would say to them that your countrymen are every bit as capable of taking care of themselves and handling guns as American concealled carry citizens have proven to be....
I could take any random selection of their countries citizens and within a very short time turn them into safe gun handlers and assets to their countries.
spook... what is it about australians that you feel makes them so inferior to Americans?
lazs
-
and spook... how much time have you spent here in America and where (it's a big place)?
when you were here how many 10 year olds did you run into with fully automatic uzi's and how did you survive?
I bet that I could find a dozen American women who were better shots than you, had better safe gun handling and had fired more rounds than you.
I bet If we trained 100 of your countrymen with you included you would only finish somewher in the middle.... hardly elite.
lazs
-
So 10,000 Americans are murdered a year with firearms. They obviously know this and think it's worth it in order to maintain thier 2nd amendment rights.
So what's the problem?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You really are one for over-blown, tired old rhetoric. Nashwan refutes the 'facts' of that article and you break out the Charlton Heston impersonation. Lame. I'm not entirely sure how the two are connected.
Here's a few pointers. Firstly, drop the "our armed populace is covering your asses" nonsense. I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to say there, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And secondly, your paranoid assumptions that anyone in Britain would want to take away your guns is inane at best.
"The UN is coming! The UN is coming! Go get your six shooter!"
Oh pur-leeze.
Huh?
Go ahead and give away your guns, I don't give a rats ass. When you brits stop going on and on about our guns I'll stop with the "tired old rhetoric". Deal?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So 10,000 Americans are murdered a year with firearms. They obviously know this and think it's worth it in order to maintain thier 2nd amendment rights.
So what's the problem?
We value our freedom more than our life. It's that simple.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Maverick,
uring a simple exercise, I had had a bad case of tunnel vision. It was a real eye opener (btw I missed the thug :o. Had I reacted like this in RL I would have just caused a shootout in a crowded place).
Sounds to me that you fit the "75%" group just fine till you were trained diffrently.
-
Spook,
It seems you know so much more about America and how safe it is here and hell I am a native of 51 years here. Who woulda thought I was so mistaken. :rolleyes:
I have never seen an uzi toting 10 year old. I do know a few who have uzi's and none of them are less than 40.
Your elitist bit about the training is a bit of a crock as well. Quite a few "civies" I know handle their weapons with more care than the Officers I shared a locker room with in the station but you know more than I about that as well I suppose.
If you will feel so unsafe coming to the states I'd suggest you stay home. Your paranoia might be catching and make some of the natives here restless. You obviously know so much about the country you have no need to see how it really is.
BTW since retiring over 10 years, I have long since stopped carrying. Oh and BTW, as a full time RV'er I see quite a bit of the states in my travels. As a matter of fact I'm in the 21'st state we have visited since last June. Haven't seen a single uzi toting 10 year old in any of them. Those states range from the west to the far north east and down in the deep south. Right now I'm only 80 miles from the gulf coast in Louisianna.
But please tell me more how I'm scared to be here without my firearm and in so much danger. I could use another laugh. :rolleyes:
-
Im beginning to wonder Mav as to what it was you actually did as a cop when I read your responses with your gun pro ala carte twisted interpretations thrown in. Think back to when a Crim read one of your briefs before court and "suddenly found" that imaginery loophole that was going to shatter the prosecution brief and save his godless prettythang. Thats what im interpreting in your posts. Please read my posts. Ignore the "Hollywood" spin on 10 year old uzi toters and sort out the meat from the potatoes. The training is not about what was said in my posts, but more about what was not said. Ive no reason to doubt you are who you say you are. Ive read your posts before. So go back to thinking like a cop for a little bit and not like a pro-gun lobbyist.
Everytime I read a post from Laz, whilst he attempts to justify his point of view in the populations holding of firearms for self defence, it reminds me of the old western movies where the townsfolk gather up their arms to beat off the incoming Cowboy desperados who number 4 against the towns population of 100.
He sounds like a Cowboy. He may wear a white hat, but he is still just another Cowboy with a gun.
At no point, have I used the word "elitist" in describing Police training. At no point have I denigrated Joe Schmo, average US citizen by infering complete stupidity and an inadequacy to use a firearm and your complete disregard for the content of my arguement with regards to training disciplines and the alternative solutions that encompass a conflict resolution package which exceeds, the use of deadly force, baffles me.
I dont mean any disrespect, but im guessing your 10 year absence from the job has been a long one for you. Times have changed. In particular, Use of Force.
Laz. Sweet mother of god man, im not even sure why im debating the topic with you. You sir, a quite politely,...full of it.
"You cant out shoot me. Im so much better with a gun than you and I know women who can outshoot you" are childrens book arguements. Its like screaming, "me me me me meeeee"
Give it up man. Its a pathetic unsubstantiated cry for help. Its not an intelligient arguement in the gun debate. Your attempt to turn the debate into a personal one will last the length of this post and no more. Ive long ago learnt whats its like trying to argue to one of the "wannabee" brigade.
Laz, Lets get back to the facts shall we and save the "me me me" cries of self ego bolstering for those unfortunates who have to deal with you in real life and probably have no way of escaping out of the elevator.
Oh...and im willing to bet an hour of my being tied down and forced to listen to you telling me how wonderful you are, that I can cane your ego blistering ar$e on any shooting range, in any country on any day of the week.
spook... what is it about australians that you feel makes them so inferior to Americans?[
I'll be buggered sideways Laz, but that quote made me laugh out loud. To answer it............Your dreaming mate.
(Note to others) Please excuse my small self indulgent reply and enjoy the rest of the thread.:) )
-
Originally posted by lazs2
scspook.... you are the one who doesn't trust his own countrymen.... I would say it is you that has the problem... don't they give cops psyc tests down there?
This from a guy who keeps a mini14 for "street sweeping duties"
You can't have much trust in your countrymen, so quit your preaching.
And for the sake of your neighbours it's you that should be getting a psyc test.
Excel
-
Originally posted by Toad
...the English ban on handguns didn't do much of anything at all. It was just another member-stroking feel-good political BS move.
You're welcome. Glad to explain it for ya.
Q. How do you know for sure that the gun problem would not have been twice as bad, but for that ban?
A. You don't. No-one does.
Hmmm, think I'll organise a flu jab. Oh wait, the success rate is not 100%. Forget it.
-
spook... I am sure that it is not just me that has noticed that you have no arguement other than your elite status as a cop giving you insight into the minds of not onoly your countrymen but the minds of people in America that you not only have never been around but seem to have no understaning at all off.
I have given you the facts...you have given your feelings. My facta are solid... your fellings are tainted by a superior attitude that is unwaranted. 99& of your population could easily be trained in safe gun handling and would be law abiding citizens.
as for telling maverick that he doesn't know about U.S. cops or that he should "think like a cop" (comeon buddy it's us against them bull).... well... I see perhaps 100 cops a month at the shooting range that is on the facility under my care... I also see concealled carry holders and swat and all manner of shooters... they are all the same... just people and Rank and
file cops hold exactly the oppossite views about armed citizens that you do.... Rank and file cops overwhelmingly support citizens rights to be armed and often suggest that they do so.
My point about you finishing in the middle of the pack in any gun course is that you are not special. You have no special right to go armed in an unarmed society. I don't trust you any more or less than my neighbors. In fact... you seem a little tightly wound and easily touched off if your authority and superiority are even questioned. You frankl, you seem like a nut to me.
Your low opinion of your fellow citizen (subject?) is something that only the most burned out and worst cops here have.
Mvericks take on things match mine and the data..yours doesn't... we live here... you don't.
sooo... just taking the data.... where is the slaughter caused by the milloons of concealled carry permit holders here in the U.S.? How dose it stack up against your "feelings"?
lazs
-
Police round here are in favor of the 2nd Amendment. Long as you obey the law and have a permit, it's great with them.
The concealed permits are very restrictive. Can't carry one in a bar or to a sporting event, or anywhere else where there is a large gathering of people. But everywhere else is ok.
It's a concealed permit, because if you show the weapon, that constitutes intimidation and is against the law.
In realty it is a very big hassle to carry a gun. You have to give it your undivided attention and have much respect for it and what it represents. Whatever the reasons are for carrying, it is unwise to do so if you don't practice on a regular basis, or if you have any doubt you would use the weapon.
I don't think even Lazs has shot someone, though I may be wrong. The truth is, no matter how much training you have with a handgun, you don't know whether you'd use it or not.
Never ever ever show a gun to intimidate someone. You'd better be ready to kill, or they could just take it away from you and shove it up your ass.
Les
-
shooting someone is an absolute last resort. Everyone except criminals understand this.
but... spookie knows all about things cause he "feels" it... he denegrates mavericks service as a policeman when It very likely that maverick has encountered upset citizens that also happen to own firearms.... thousands of times more often than spookie...
spookie lives in a country where guns are banned yet people still commit murder there.... we live in a country where millions of citizens have concealled carry permits and go around armed and they cause no problems at all.... The FACT is that they are the most law abiding group ever studied.
spookie offers no data to back up his claims that arming citizens would cause wholesale slaughter. His only reason being that only people like himself are capable of handling the power of the big bas boogey man.... the firearm. It should be restricted to royalty and elite cops.
Just like Mav is doing.... cops here would laugh at spookie.... if they didn't get angry instead.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we live in a country where millions of citizens have concealled carry permits and go around armed and they cause no problems at all.... The FACT is that they are the most law abiding group ever studied.
Then where do your annual 10,000 gun homicides come from?
You're still living in a fool's paradise, Lazs. Sure, it would be fine if you and others like you were the only ones in possession of fireams....
...but it isn't like that, as well you know. Or at least you would, but... (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_10_4.gif)
-
Spook,
I was a street cop for my entire career. That's where I liked to be and had only a few temporary assignments inside the station while recovering from injuries. Good enough for you?
As to the uzi toting 10 year olds, that's from your posts. Please note I did not bring that up until I pointed out how silly your statement was after you alleged it occurs here all the time in the states. As far as "hollywood spin" is concerned it seems you have swallowed that little bit from the group that likes to use fantasy to support their position. Much like your comments about how unsafe it is here in the states and how insecure you would feel. That is as offensive to me as it would be to you if I said all Aussies run around with large knives strapped on, aligator vests and kill crocodiles by stabbing them in the head after a flying leap onto their back. :rolleyes:
I did not make briefs for court. Lawyers in our system prepare legal briefs. Police Officers make reports. Briefs contain opinions for court review.
I have no idea about a criminal having a "godless prettythang". Their choice of religion is irrelevant, both to me and the court system, unless they commit an illegal act while "practicing" their "religion".
If you are "interpreting" my posts, you are using the wrong interpretations. I tend to speak very plainly and say what I mean. I do not adopt a "personna" on the bbs and abhor trollers. Don't "interpret" my posts, just read or ignore. Using your inferences about something I do not say or imply is counterproductive and attempt to place words in my mouth.
Cops here think like people do. There is no major change in thought processes when you are hired. Cops here are people first, not robots to be programmed. There is no reason to put the general population on a pedestal as you state. The vast majority of the general population is rather productive, law abiding and all around good folks. The minority who are not so and prey on the rest get all the publicity.
My retirement is not that long and I doubt that I am out of touch with the concept of use of force. Frankly I would consider myself more in touch with use of force in the states than you. I've been here and you are so paranoid about being here that you would need to have "eyes in the back of your head open". It doesn't bother me to be a member of the general population now that I'm retired. Based on the tone of your posts I would hazard a guess that your leaving the job might be more than a bit of a let down. There IS life after retirement and it's quite rewarding without the uniform and job.
-
same question to you beetle.... where is the data that shows allowing citizens to carry weapons concealled causes all this slaughter you speak of? How am I being blind to it?
I contend that it is you who are unwilling to see the facts because you have preconcieved notions.
I will concede that anyone who decides to own, and especially carry, a firearm should get as much instruction as they can.. I believe it is their duty to understand the grave responsability they are taking on....
I believe that if all firearms suddenly disappeared from the U.S. we would still have about the same amount of homicides but that crime would increase dramaticly. I have no proof of this since it has never happened but I do have proof of the reverse.... when citizens here are given the right to carry concealled weapons.... crime goes down in that state.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Q. How do you know for sure that the gun problem would not have been twice as bad, but for that ban?
You had next to nothing gun homicide before the ban and you've still got next to nothing. (Minor squabbles over stats notwithstanding.)
That demonstrates to me that your ban really accomplished nothing.
It's as plain as Big Ben and it's what Laz and others have been saying here for years.
Only the law-abiding gun owners would comply with the ban and those guys never were a problem anyway.
Your criminals never turned in their guns and never will. They were and still are the problem.
Congrats... you've successfully disarmed the folks that were never a threat, while making the criminals even more dangerous as they are now the only ones with guns now.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Sounds to me that you fit the "75%" group just fine till you were trained diffrently.
Exactly my point. You need some basic skills and a lot of training to be able to handle, carry and use a firearm with a reasonable safety for the innocents (and even then, you won't know for sure until you're put to 'the test'...).
I wonder how many concealed carrying citizens have received the same kind of training that I have had (general shooting with shooters moving simultaneously along the range, movie-shooting, Simunition FX exercises...) which is still far from being perfect.
Using a gun according to the law as a last resort measure is a bit more than letting fly some brass at the range.
Once again, I'm not against it. But if you don't regulate those permits tightly, all you'll win is a huge anti-gun wave at the next serious incident (mismatched use of force or worse some idiot spraying and praying in self-defence).
And if you had really so much trust in your fellow citizens, you wouldn't need a gun in the first place.
-
Thanks for not explaining your post in any way, AKIron. I'll revert back to my original interpretation.
"...you brits stop going on and on about our guns...' consists of Beetle. One man. On some obscure internet BBS.
Your paranoia knows no depths... let me assure you that most British people couldn't care less about your gun ownership rights.
As for British guns - I think the controls are too tight and are politically motivated. But frankly, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are bigger fish to fry as far as unreasonable changes to British legislature goes - let's start with the anti-terrorism laws...
-
I notice alot of folks think the only reason that we American gun lovers want guns is for self defense reasons only. I wonder if they ever take into account that alot of us use guns for recreational enjoyment.
Yes I can use one of my guns in a self defense situation.
No I do not look to shoot somebody everytime I walk out my door.
Yes I do try to stay in condition orange and be aware of my surroundings.
No I do not hunt on a regular basis.
Yes I do go often when money permits and participate in the art and enjoyment of shooting.
Yet I am told that somebody else who has doesnt have a clue who I am that they know whats best for me and my other fellow law abiding shooters. These same people are the same ones who in alot of cases come across that they are above everybody else and are on a sick power trip. They are also the ones who when you ask will truly believe the police can be at their residence in time to save them in the unfortunate event of a violent crime.
BAM they are stabbed at with the common kitchen knife!
BAM they are stabbed again
BAM they are stabbed again
They have been struck three times. All strikes will be fatal. It wasnt with a gun.
Where is the phone to call the law?
Where is the law?
They sure arent there saving their butt
The victim will die in a matter of a few minutes.
The law turns out to be at least five minutes away and the victim has 3 minutes to live.
Damage already has been done and whats been done cant be undone.
Somewhere in the struggle I am pretty sure a shot could have been gotten off by either the victim or a by stander to do one of two things or both.
1.) prevent further injury to victim
2.) prevent criminal from getting away and attacking future victims
If I was the victim I would be dying with some satisfaction knowing that the sorry SOB aint gonna be harming somebody else.
Law enforcement officials cannot be everywhere you are all the time to be there to assist you in your time of need.
So give up your guns. Go ahead the world is a better place with out them. Your safer therefore I am safer. You never enjoyed/ participated in the art of shooting and therefore we shouldn't either. You have the ultimate trust that the law will be there to protect you in your time of need and therefore we should have the same trust. LEave your doors unlocked and give everything you ever worked for the the pond scum that enters you home and says I want this and that. Tell the scum to have a go at your wife and your daughter while your at it as well.
To all those that feel we as a nation do not need guns for what ever reason I tell you to just lay down and announce to the world of evil doers to have their way with you. I tell you this because I know whats best for you.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Thanks for not explaining your post in any way, AKIron. I'll revert back to my original interpretation.
"...you brits stop going on and on about our guns...' consists of Beetle. One man. On some obscure internet BBS.
Your paranoia knows no depths... let me assure you that most British people couldn't care less about your gun ownership rights.
As for British guns - I think the controls are too tight and are politically motivated. But frankly, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are bigger fish to fry as far as unreasonable changes to British legislature goes - let's start with the anti-terrorism laws...
I didn't realize my post needed any explaining Dowding. Which part didn't you understand? Maybe you are reading too much into it?
BTW, I too am only one man on "some obscure internet BBS" and I'm confident I can find more threads here with anti-gun posts from Brits. While I have no confidence that any anti-gun zealot will be influenced here by anyone, I still reserve the right to make my comments, banal as they may seem to you. Feel free to do the same. However, if you want to direct your irritation at our independence at me specifically be aware that I may respond in kind.
-
Then where do your annual 10,000 gun homicides come from?
criminals carrying legal guns, and using them illegally.
i wonder what would happen if everyone was given mandatory gun training, and prison time for gun crime was doubled.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
BTW, I too am only one man on "some obscure internet BBS" and I'm confident I can find more threads here with anti-gun posts from Brits.
Those threads would be more reactionary than any sort of attack I can assure you.
-
OK, I went back to my post, I guess I can see how it could be misinterpreted. When I said "you shouldn't expect us to watch your borders and prevent smuggling" I was referring to Beet1e's request of "No (more) guns..." I was not talking about protecting you from invaders, only that we aren't going to be held responsible for guns that are smuggled from the US into England.
Regarding the UN, there has been a growing effort to ban the personal ownership of firearms worldwide. Charlton Heston wasn't the first to say it and he certainly won't be the last, "when you pry it from my cold dead fingers".
-
This thread should have been titled No (more) guns please- We're *******.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"when you pry it from my cold dead fingers".
that can be arranged.
-
Not sure what the anti gun guys are saying here. Are you saying that without guns.... people who are intent on commiting murder will simply not do so?
certainly a lot of the murders like the ones where wives finally shoot an abusive husband won't happen but data shows that abused women often end up being murdered so ... you just trade one for the other.
Americans fight back.... if criminals break in or try to mug us we fight back.... if we have guns it usually ends with either the criminal running away or getting shot. without guns it will make the criminal bolder and he will cause death or injury to the defenseless homeowner.... he certainly won't give up his chance to get enough money for the next bowl of crack simply because he might have to fistfight with some elderly person or woman.
Fact is... deselys is correct.. we need training to carry concealed but... not so much as he thinks perhaps. My proof is the overwhelming success of the programs with sometimes minimal training..... No real problems with concealled carry permit holders have shown up....
I think one reason for this is that Americans were raised with guns... they need less training than perhaps other countries..especialy when it comes to handguns.... I would like to keep it this way.
vorts soundbites are simply ludicrous and baseless. his competent mugger one was really silly. Let's just say... mugger holds nife out and demands wallet.... instead of wallet he get's muzzle flash from keltec 380 or airweight smith... Don't know what those are? didn't think so.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
shooting someone is an absolute last resort. Everyone except criminals understand this.
but... spookie knows all about things cause he "feels" it... he denegrates mavericks service as a policeman when It very likely that maverick has encountered upset citizens that also happen to own firearms.... thousands of times more often than spookie...
spookie lives in a country where guns are banned yet people still commit murder there.... we live in a country where millions of citizens have concealled carry permits and go around armed and they cause no problems at all.... The FACT is that they are the most law abiding group ever studied.
spookie offers no data to back up his claims that arming citizens would cause wholesale slaughter. His only reason being that only people like himself are capable of handling the power of the big bas boogey man.... the firearm. It should be restricted to royalty and elite cops.
Just like Mav is doing.... cops here would laugh at spookie.... if they didn't get angry instead.
lazs
Spook and his partner were in a confrontation with 130 men surrounding them. Spook had to fight for his life, the old fashioned way without a gun. He kicked their butts so good they left him alone, and the "australian rednecks"never messed with him again.
Les
Les
-
Come on Laz, you know Anti gun people live in a fantasy land..
A land were somehow, when a gun law is passed it makes criminals, who brake the law all the time obey it.
They have faith criminals will obey those gun laws, but some how the average joe gun owner won't and can not be trusted.
They do not trust anyone, sometimes not even themselves cause those guns are evil. They do not believe in god in many cases, or anything supernatural, but guns, now guns are true evil and will make you do bad things.
There is only one reason to them for high murder rates! GUNS!
There can be no others reasons.
Arguing with them is a waste of time, they are ignorant, and will never change their view.
-
Grrrr Stupid double post. Must be an evil gun manipulating my puter.
They are tricky like that... :D
-
Originally posted by vorticon
that can be arranged.
Not by some gunless nancy.
-
GTO and leslie.... Ya know... I really do understand the mentality that is so anti gun... It is simply that there is a huge media bias against guns and so mauch bad information and sensationalism... Most myths are dispelled with a simple shooting session but some are ingrained too deeply.... they are told constantly of the evil by blather and company so it just can't be ALL wrong can it? yep... it all can be wrong.
some has to do with elitism... those who feel that they can't trust their fellow man because people (except themselves and other elites who share their views of the world) are stupid and clumsy and murderous....
some of it has to do with fear of weapons.... Freud explains that one pretty well.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not by some gunless nancy.
bucket of water all over your front steps, in the middle of winter. simple.
-
maybe were you are from, it would be evaperated around here by morning.
lol
I think you best bet it to dress in drag and hit on him, then hit him over the head with a frying pan!
Course then they will try and ban those!
-
Originally posted by vorticon
bucket of water all over your front steps, in the middle of winter. simple.
No front steps and you can count the days on yer hands that water would freeze on my porch anyhow.
That does remind me of a story though. I spent a year in Korea without a car and so walked pretty much everywhere I went. I was walking to work one very cold morning and was about 50 feet behind a guy that slipped on a patch of ice and plopped flat on his ass. I snickered. When I go to the patch of ice I did the same damn thing.
-
vorts soundbites are simply ludicrous and baseless. his competent mugger one was really silly. Let's just say... mugger holds nife out and demands wallet.... instead of wallet he get's muzzle flash from keltec 380 or airweight smith... Don't know what those are? didn't think so.
im also not sure what a nife is, please educate me.
how does your gun fit in if the mugger say, steps out of a shadow behind the gun, hits him on the back of the head, then takes what he wants, including the gun. or, guy steps out behind him, puts a knife to his neck, then demands the wallet.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im also not sure what a nife is, please educate me.
how does your gun fit in if the mugger say, steps out of a shadow behind the gun, hits him on the back of the head, then takes what he wants, including the gun. or, guy steps out behind him, puts a knife to his neck, then demands the wallet.
My brother used to carry a .32 (I think) in a wallet shaped holster in his back pocket. Had a hole in the middle so you could shoot without removing the gun from the "wallet". Now he has three teenage daughters and has now gotten rid of all of his guns. I think they even have him buffaloed into voting for Kerry. :(
-
Come on Laz, you know Anti gun people live in a fantasy land..
A land were somehow, when a gun law is passed it makes criminals, who brake the law all the time obey it.
That actually sums up American laws. Guns are fairly freely available, but criminals aren't allowed to own them. Of course, criminals got that way by breaking laws...
They have faith criminals will obey those gun laws, but some how the average joe gun owner won't and can not be trusted.
No, the whole point of gun control is it targets supply. If you make it difficult for anyone to get a gun, you make it difficult for everyone, criminals included. The American system makes it easy for everyone, including criminals.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
GTO and leslie.... Ya know... I really do understand the mentality that is so anti gun... It is simply that there is a huge media bias against guns and so mauch bad information and sensationalism... Most myths are dispelled with a simple shooting session but some are ingrained too deeply.... they are told constantly of the evil by blather and company so it just can't be ALL wrong can it? yep... it all can be wrong.
some has to do with elitism... those who feel that they can't trust their fellow man because people (except themselves and other elites who share their views of the world) are stupid and clumsy and murderous....
some of it has to do with fear of weapons.... Freud explains that one pretty well.
lazs
I have never thought you were stupid, and I don't think that now.
Les
-
Mmmm I don't quite agree with you Nashwan. While it will make guns a bit harder to get for 'small' criminals, it won't change a thing for dedicated ones.
OTOH the gun blackmarket will thrive and allow to generate huge amounts of money. Remember how the US Prohibition turned out: people were still drinking booze, and criminals got insanely rich.
It's funny that while we Euros are advocating some evolution to a limited drugs legalizing to avoid this process, at the same time we are doing exactly the contrary about guns.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think one reason for this is that Americans were raised with guns... they need less training than perhaps other countries. lazs
There are so many good quotes from you Laz, I barely know where to begin or which one to use as my new signature block.
I think you need to get out in the world a bit more. Not that long ago, Australia was riddled with guns. Still is for that matter. Those guns being mainly in the rural areas for landowners for a variety of legal reasons. When it comes to size comparisons, think on how much rural area, Australia consists of.
I myself, was raised around guns. I also owned 6 personal longarms before the weapons amnesty in this country kicked in.
The point of gun amnesty for the 50th time on this BBS, is to remove the potential threat of firearms being stolen from law abiding citizens and then being used unlawfully against the population.
Noone has or had any pre-concieved conceptions that it was going to utterly wipe out and remove guns completely. It is simply a control measure to reduce crime.
Again. Guns have not been removed completely. But now, unless you have a lawful reason to be in possession of one, you commit an unlawful act.
Recreational shooters belonging to registered clubs.
Those using them in the purpose of their employment, ie; Police, Security etc
and rural land owners can all still own guns.
The ownership of handguns however is a different kettle of fish.
1 reason in many of your previous arguements on this subject was self defence for Joe Schmoe, average citizen. I put it to you that if you were keeping your weapon lawfully and sensibly with your ammo seperated from your weapon, bolts out of longarms etc etc, you would be better off using a kitchen butter knife than your All American pearl crusted, john wayne engraved .45
I could take any random selection of their countries citizens and within a very short time turn them into safe gun handlers and assets to their countries
Thats the problem Laz. The randomness. For you as a range manager or whatever it is you do, its a very profitable enterprise. No doubt you would do well. Theres plenty of nuffies in this country who would love to complete one of your courses, let alone how many of them must reside in yours.
Your arguement entirely avoids the human equation and thats the one which decides life and death, not the gun you hold in your hand. Your gun in every hand, just gives a crap decision, a better chance of happening.
I could rabbit on more but this post would be to long.
Mav.
I am not in doubt about your service time. I can assure you that noone is looking more forward to retiring than I. In the meantime tho, im happy enough to do what I do. Ive no complaints.
Again, I could rabbit on about the tactical considerations and distances on fire fights, (from the Police perspective) but it would deserve a completely seperate post and much of it, I would not discuss on this BBS either.
Laz,
At no point did I denigrate Mav or his career. Try to stay out of fantasy land and gathering the popular vote like an American election. Even you guys must be sick of that rubbish by now.
Les
Spook and his partner were in a confrontation with 130 men surrounding them. Spook had to fight for his life, the old fashioned way without a gun. He kicked their butts so good they left him alone, and the "australian rednecks"never messed with him again.
It was 50 mate. It was a gun day, if I could have gotten to it. Another reminder that the god almighty gun doesnt help with them all. :) Cheers.
Now I must go. Theres a gun nut out there somewhere that needs attitude adjustment. ta ta...
-
Ahhh seee, I was right, an anti gun guy who does not trust his fellow man.
Your willing to punish everyone because some nut may use a firearm in a bad way.
The statistics on concealed carry permits in the US pretty much prove the people who carry them are not nuts, and cause no problems.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
You had next to nothing gun homicide before the ban and you've still got next to nothing. (Minor squabbles over stats notwithstanding.)
Well, next to nothing is a relative value.
You seem to be in good health! :aok
-
One time one of my frat brothers was surrounded by 30 negroes, at High School. There was only one other white guy there, and everyone knew what was gonna happen. Batman immediately ran to his car and opened the trunk. He came back with a sawed off shotgun and the Negroes decided to leave.
Les
-
Well the negros wernt stupid :rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Norwegian police is armed. They have guns in their patrol cars, but are not allowed to use them (take them out of the car) except for self defence, or when given permission by higher authority.
So, what do they do when a criminal suddenly produces a weapon, excuse themselves while they go fetch their pistols?
Arrgh! Give those guys a break, insist they be allowed to carry their weapons anytime they feel the need. And to hell with the higher-ups safe in their office....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I would feel less secure. So would many others.
Okay, but feelings are often diametrically opposed to reality. Whether you feel less secure isn't the question. The question is: would you actually be less secure? Evidence here in the States points to the answer as being no. Properly trained, law abiding gun owners are an asset to any community.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The gun laws in the UK were in part prompted by the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 when 16 children and their teacher were shot dead by a licensed gun owner with 2 revolvers and 2 semi-automatic pistols.
There have been no school massacres since.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
The gun laws in the UK were in part prompted by the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 when 16 children and their teacher were shot dead by a licensed gun owner with 2 revolvers and 2 semi-automatic pistols.
There have been no school massacres since.
Or prior either.... :rolleyes:
Don't let logic get in the way of your argument.
My regards,
Widewing
-
How many do you think we'd need then?
-
Chortle,
How many kids a year killed in bathtubs? Should they be banned?
How about in cars? Should they be banned as well?
One incedent to me, is not enough to give up a right for a false sense of safety.
The nutter could have done just as much or more damage with a bomb.
-
That Thomas Hamilton was apparently a model citizen too.... no complaints about his actions with young boys to the police, were there?
-
GtoRA2, I'm not trying to convince anyone in the US to change anything, and for what it's worth, what I've read about concealed carry sounds great.
Its different here though, and I dont think introducing more guns however legal, will solve anything.
Toad, yeah he was a scumbag and a pervert, but for whatever reason he was licensed. The next scumbag I can remember who did something similar used a samurai sword in a nursery school. The teacher there got serious injuries and a civic medal for bravery as she fended him off, some children were hurt but there were no fatalities. It may be simplistic to argue that 'if he'd been armed it could have been worse' but thats the way I see it.
-
Precious whispers that you're devoid of testosterone and lack the manly chromosomes to sniff my bluing.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Okay, but feelings are often diametrically opposed to reality. Whether you feel less secure isn't the question. The question is: would you actually be less secure? Evidence here in the States points to the answer as being no. Properly trained, law abiding gun owners are an asset to any community.
Lazs wasn't asking about "in the states". The question related to that fair in Nottingham. You cannot compare the gun situation in the states to that of Britain. Long may that continue. You would undesrstand me better if you read Nashwan's posts more closely...
Nashwan nailed it, again: "No, the whole point of gun control is it targets supply. If you make it difficult for anyone to get a gun, you make it difficult for everyone, criminals included. The American system makes it easy for everyone, including criminals."
Many pro-gunnners here are still missing the point made by Nashwan and Spook (and Curval, in the past). Removing guns from the equation (as Australia has done) or preventing a flood of guns in the first place (as Britain has done) isn't designed to penalise law abiding people. It's to make it difficult for anyone to get a gun, by targeting supply. In an ideal situation, the bad guys can't get guns and the good guys therefore don't need guns. Those wanting to participate in range shooting can keep the guns at the club. Now as I've said (about 500 times, actually) no laws work perfectly, and British gun control laws are no exception.
My original reason for posting this thread was the situation in Nottingham, where a 14 year old girl was recently shot and killed as she walked home from a fun fair. My 19 year old niece walked home from that very same fair on the same night, and was very upset when she heard this news. As for Danielle Beccan's murder:- If a gun had not been available to the killer, would he have used a kitchen knife instead? No, and she would still be alive. It was a drive-by shooting, and I heard that an automatic weapon had been used.
- Some of you are saying that more guns is the answer. I ask again: Do you think it would be correct to arm 14 year olds attending fun fairs? Would that be legal where any of you live? Would Danielle still be alive if she'd been allowed to be armed? No, no and no. She never had a chance. Even Lazs would not have had a chance against such an attack.
- Would anyone like to live in a society where you had to carry a gun, just to feel safe? I know I wouldn't, but FWIW I don't think I have to carry a gun in America to feel safe. I was in New York just last month, and felt safe. And before any wise arse says "that's because of all the armed police/citizens around you", I feel even safer in my little town of 7000 people, and two nights ago even walked home across the park, shortly before midnight.
The American stance seems to be that if the law abiding are armed, the criminals will be deterred, and somehow there will be less crime, ie fewer homicides. THAT is a fool's paradise, and one need look no further than the homicide stats for the evidence.
As even Mr. Toad would concede, gun homicide in Britain is next to nothing (but IMO is still way too much). That compares with around 10,000 people shot and killed in America every year (including around 70 well trained and heavily armed police officers), and more than 300,000 in a 25 year period. And yet folks still persist with the comfort value of guns - probably because they have never experienced life in an unarmed society. Most of the pro-gun arguments I see here would be applicable only in America.
More guns less crime? Hmmm... doesn't seem to work too well - read Nashwan's remark in my sig...
-
Chortle,
How many kids a year killed in bathtubs? Should they be banned?
How about in cars? Should they be banned as well?
One incedent to me, is not enough to give up a right for a false sense of safety.
The nutter could have done just as much or more damage with a bomb.
Gtora. Are you seriously comparing, accidents in bathtubs or cars to a deliberate act with a piece of machinery which has 1 purpose and 1 purpose only, to seriously maim or end human life?
You do know the difference between a bath and a gun I hope.
1 Incident? Which 1 of countless?
A nutter could do more damage in one incident with a bomb. Correct. Hence we dont allow them in our homes on the pretence of self defence. Bombs have 1 purpose. To kill.
Are there legal requirements and legal operators out there to make and use bombs? Of course.
Are there legal requirements and legal operators to use guns?
Yes. Unfortunately for the States, far too many of them.
Ahhh seee, I was right, an anti gun guy who does not trust his fellow man.
If its me your refering to in your post. No arguement from me.
Da*n straight I dont trust my fellow man. Imho, anyone who does is an idiot.
-
Beetle, you are "thinking" and typing too much. More is less....
-
[Gtora. Are you seriously comparing, accidents in bathtubs or cars to a deliberate act with a piece of machinery which has 1 purpose and 1 purpose only, to seriously maim or end human life?
You do know the difference between a bath and a gun I hope.
What?
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Are you seriously comparing, accidents in bathtubs or cars to a deliberate act with a piece of machinery which has 1 purpose and 1 purpose only, to seriously maim or end human life?
[/B]
Want to explain what "piece of machinery your talking about here?
Steeeeeeeeeerrrrriiiiiiiiiiik kkkkkkkkke 1.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Precious whispers that you're devoid of testosterone and lack the manly chromosomes to sniff my bluing.
Abso-shrecking-lootly, yer sick deviant.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Regarding the UN, there has been a growing effort to ban the personal ownership of firearms worldwide. Charlton Heston wasn't the first to say it and he certainly won't be the last, "when you pry it from my cold dead fingers".
A useless dysfunctional screwed-up organisation like the UN dictating to democraticlly elected governments of sovereign nations what rights their citizens shouldn't have. It would be laughable... if it wasn't happening.
It's bad enough we have to put up with our own dipchit politicians, at least we elected them, but hell will freeze over before I let those bananas at the UN affect my life to any great degree.
Excel
-
It seems to me that a good many people care more about appearing right than they do about resolution. I'm frustrated by people who percieve debate as a contest rather than an exploration for truth. Further evidence that I'm abnormal I guess.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Want to explain what "piece of machinery your talking about here?
Steeeeeeeeeerrrrriiiiiiiiiiik kkkkkkkkke 1.
Do you think considering the topic of the thread and the many posts within it, that I could be refering to a ....... Firearm?
-
Oh you are so horribly wrong, Suave. Come around to my way of thinking and you would be so much more calm. Serenity would fill your hours and you could find ultimate happiness.
Continue with your present thoughts and your frustration will continue.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
a piece of machinery which has 1 purpose and 1 purpose only, to seriously maim or end human life?
Therein lies the problem. Some see guns only in this narrow fashion.
The truth, of course, is that the only purpose of a gun is to project a small mass at somewhat high velocity from the shooter to a target some distance away.
Now, the choice of the target is entirely determined by the shooter, not the gun.
Most guns, by an incredibly huge majority probably in the 99% + range aren't used to to seriously maim or end human life.
They're used for sport.
That's why there's never going to be any agreement. Some folks are just blind to the entire spectrum of firearms use and can focus only on the tiny percentage of misuse.
-
Toad. The human operator decides whether or not its a paper or a human target. The gun itself decides nothing. Its metal, plastic etc. It has no thought process.
By design, its sole purpose, is to kill or maim.
Guns do not play sport. They do not kill to eat. They do not kill indiscriminantly. Guns dont care if you have a small grouping or a large. They dont know what day it is and if you let them rust and crumble to dust they wont shed a tear. They have no tear ducts.
Guns were designed by Humans for 1 purpose only.
The gun isnt the problem. The human with the gun is the problem.
No matter which way you spin it. Add a thousand of Laz's stat sheets (which by the way do more harm to his arguement than good) and it still wont sway the countless human variables that carry no guarentees of safety.
Not one person on this BBS, be they experienced with firearms or not, can guarentee safety against the human variable.
The problem does not lie therein, as you so eloquently put it. It lies within us all. Even the charming gun nuts, that flourish this BBS are a part of it.
-
Horse doobers.
(http://www.geocities.com/pistoleer2001/MC_55-1_Free_Pistola.jpg)
This pistol is designed to do one thing only and it most certainly isn't "to seriously maim or end human life".
Same with this SKB O/U.
(http://www.gamaliel.com/cart/skin1/images/4981.jpg)
Your argument is typical of those that are too blind to see that the vast majority of firearms in US civilian hands are not used or even designed That's just fatuous BS.
But at least you got this part right.
The human operator decides whether or not its a paper or a human target.
Yet your solution is still to blame the gun. Arrest all those evil guns; destroy them all. Brilliant solution.
With the same results as Britain; they didn't really have a gun homicide problem BEFORE the ban and they still don't.
The British "bad guys" that did use guns in criminal ways still have their guns and are still using them in criminal ways. And, no matter what stats you choose, the numbers show the problem with the criminal element hasn't changed much either.
But at least they managed to eliminate legitimate sport pistol shooting for a host of people that were never a threat to society. Well done. :rolleyes:
-
British gun crime before ban: sod all
British gun ownership per capita before ban: sod all
British gun crime after ban: sod all
British gun ownership per capita after ban: sod all
Conclusion: Gun ownership in the UK is largely irrelevant.
US gun ownership per capita: very high
US gun crime: very high
Canadian gun ownership per capita: very high
Canadian gun crime: low
Conclusion: The issue isn't 'should we ban guns in America to reduce gun crime?' The issue is "What is wrong with American society to give rise to such disproportionate crime rates compared to other gun owning nations?"
Neither the pro- or anti- types seem to be able to answer that one.
-
spook... you got your genitals in one hand and all your "feelings" in the other and that is about all you bring to this arguement.
You have shown no data whatseover that law abiding citizens being allowed to carry concealled in any country has had any ill effects or that is has done anything but good... All you have is your bitter view of your fellow man to make your decision by... you are the last person I would want to be a cop. They retire out your type here.
nashwan has about the best arguement tho it is weak... outlawing guns reduces the supply... this is true but it does not reduce the suply to those who whould murder and does not reduce the murders by any study available..
and vorticons muggers are super muggers that there is no defense of... they are catlike stealth nunjas that sneak up on lone wanderers and bash them over the head in a public (but deserted) place... closest thing I know of is rolling drunks and they aren't allowed to carry concealed in any case at bars and such....
plus... by vorticons reasoning the norweigns and brit cops are doing it all wrong... what is stopping the super muggers from hitting them on the head and then getting their keys and getting the neato guns out of the police car trunk?
Lots of reasons to own guns.... recreation, defense, collecting, gunsmithing, targetr shooting, hunting and the original intent of the constitution... to protect from tyranny from within and without.
some countries realize this and trust their citizens and some don't. Restrictions destroy the benifiets of firearms without causing any benifiets.
In this country... we have school shootings... fully 1/3 were stopped.. ended... by armed citizens. It would have been a higher number but the benifiets were regulated away.... no one was allowed to be armed near the school so the bad guys had a turkey shoot.
like widewing says... one incident doesn't prove anyones case... and... if you have more school shootings in the future will that mean that you made a mistake in your policy of banning firearms or simply that you didn't go far enough.... oh wait... you can't go any further can you?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Conclusion: The issue isn't 'should we ban guns in America to reduce gun crime?' The issue is "What is wrong with American society to give rise to such disproportionate crime rates compared to other gun owning nations?"
Neither the pro- or anti- types seem to be able to answer that one.
Note that, unlike Spook, you have essentially admitted "it isn't the guns".
I agree with you.
As for no one being able to answer your "issue" question, I agree with that as well.
Even the sainted Michael Moore, in his otherwise worthless Bowling For Columbine, stumbled around this exact point and was unable to come up with any sort of answer.
In short, that is indeed the question.
However, it's also obvious that it isn't simply the presence of guns that causes the problem.
-
dowding... I don't know but if moving the murder rate down a couple per 100,000 population means that we have to become a tiny little socialist island with no gun rights then I will gladly stay with what we have now.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Do you think considering the topic of the thread and the many posts within it, that I could be refering to a ....... Firearm?
Well if that`s the case, then your statement is absurd.
stttteeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrriiii ikkkkkkeee 2!
-
Originally posted by Toad
However, it's also obvious that it isn't simply the presence of guns that causes the problem.
Of course it isn't. That's why I would not be averse to an armed police force, just like most other Euro police forces. I've said this before: The problem is the availability of guns, and the increased chances of them getting into the hands of criminals/idiots when the place is awash with them that's the problem. You can legislate against guns, but you can't legislate against idiots.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The problem is the availability of guns,
Sorry, beet. That's just unproven. Even the blimp known as Michael Moore showed that Canada has as many or more guns than the US and availability isn't a problem.
Yet their stats are exceedingly better than ours. It was before they tightened up their gun laws and it really hasn't change after they tightened up their gun laws.
So.... they've got more guns than the US per capita, IIRC, and they did long, long before their gun laws became significantly different from ours.
I think you're assessment of the problem is incorrect.
Again, I'll point out that Moore couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation in BFC, either... so he just left the subject hanging in his film.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, beet. That's just unproven. Even the blimp known as Michael Moore showed that Canada has as many or more guns than the US and availability isn't a problem.
Yet their stats are exceedingly better than ours. It was before they tightened up their gun laws and it really hasn't change after they tightened up their gun laws.
So.... they've got more guns than the US per capita, IIRC, and they did long, long before their gun laws became significantly different from ours.
I think you're assessment of the problem is incorrect.
Again, I'll point out that Moore couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation in BFC, either... so he just left the subject hanging in his film.
I think you're being obtuse. ;) Guns on their own are not a problem, apart from the dangers of accidental discharge etc.
We've talked about this before, and this might also answer Dowding's query: There are TWO ingredients necessary for a gun crime to occur. One is the gun, and the other is the idiot/criminal holding it. Places outside the US with high gun ownership (Canada, and parts of Scandinavia and Switzerland) don't have a huge crime problem because they don't also have the large criminal underclass. That's why the availability of guns might not be a problem in those places, but from what I've heard, most of the legally owned guns in Switzerland are not handguns, and are therefore not suited to criminal use. I've never been to Switzerland (can't afford it - lol), but I wouldn't mind betting that there are no drug gangs and turf wars going on there. OK, Britain is multicultural, but only in certain areas. But even so, we don't have a significant level of gun crime as you yourself have observed in this thread. It takes both ingredients to produce the explosive mixture which results in widespread gun crime. Britain has only one of these ingredients. Switzerland has the other. The US has both. Notice how your "availability of guns isn't the problem" stance only works outside the US, in relatively law abiding societies. The availability of guns IS the problem in the US, and WOULD BE the problem in Britain if we weren't careful.
Like I said, in the war against gun crime, you can't legislate against idiots/criminals, but you can do the next best thing, which is to legislate against the guns that they would like to get hold of.
30-40, your serve. :D I think I'll take a strawberry break.
BTW, did you hear the positive wave I sent?
-
He wrote: "So there it is. The more guns we have, the more crime we'll see. It really is that simple. "
This is not substantiated by any real facts. The crime rate in Washington, DC (NO LEGAL GUNS) is far higher than in other parts of the US where guns are commonplace.
While murder rate is lower in England, most other violent crimes exceed the US.
The Brits still can't grasp the Bill of Rights. The point is moot until an amendment is made to the constitution.
While I generally love the Brits, I can't stand liberals. Makes me glad we kicked their butts in the 1700's.
Have a nice day!
-
I think we should eliminate cars, because cars kill people.
Oh - wait - I don't NEED my guns? Who are you to say? I want them. Owning them is my RIGHT.
Holding guns accountable for killing people is the same as holding a pencil accountable for any math error you make with one.
Get real - anti gun nuts never speak with facts or reason.
Have (still) a nice day!!!!!
-
Like I said, we can't legislate against idiots. ^ :rolleyes:
I'll leave this one to Spook.
-
well... this just keeps getting more confusing.... if longguns are not suited to criminal activity then why the ban on so called "assault weapons"?
If there is a "criminal underclass" then wouldn't it make sense for the people who weren't criminal to be armed? And isn't that exactly what happens? I mean... when you arm the law abiding the criminal is less effective.
And.... if there is no differense in gun crime before or after bans in countries like england and australia.... what is the point of removing peoples freedom in the first place unless it is simple pandering?
And... doesn't it seem likely that even with a total ban on handguns that gun crime will continue to rise in england as we all become more of a "global community" and drug use and gangs increase?
lazs
-
Hey Lazs, y'ole willy-woofer! :D
"If there is a "criminal underclass" then wouldn't it make sense for the people who weren't criminal to be armed? And isn't that exactly what happens? I mean... when you arm the law abiding the criminal is less effective."
The problem about arming the law abiding is that no matter how hard you try, you can never achieve a situation in which ONLY the law abiding are armed. Put a gun shop in every mall, every street corner (and every bank - :lol) and there's absolutely no way to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. That's just the way it is. In the US, they try to pretend otherwise (fool's paradise), and that's why they have a gun homicide tally of 10000+ annually.
"And.... if there is no differense in gun crime before or after bans in countries like england and australia.... what is the point of removing peoples freedom in the first place unless it is simple pandering?"
A pre-emptive measure? To stop a bad situation from being much worse? I heard that Australia's crime dropped sharply. I'll find a URL for next time.
"And... doesn't it seem likely that even with a total ban on handguns that gun crime will continue to rise in england as we all become more of a "global community" and drug use and gangs increase?"
As I said before, our "next to nothing" gun homicide tally is too small to provide adequate sampling for accurate trend analysis. The tally has ranged between 50 and ~100 for many years, with fluctuations in both directions.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
Abso-shrecking-lootly, yer sick deviant.
You have discerned the opposite of my jest, the lack of an emoticon was its failing.
-
It takes both ingredients to produce the explosive mixture which results in widespread gun crime.
Exactly right.
Guns don't turn ordinary people into dangerous criminals but they do turn criminals into much more dangerous criminals.
For anyone interested, the latest firearms crime figures for Engalnd and Wales were published today. Why the Telegraph tried to preempt them, I don't know.
However, the figures:
10,590 firearms offences, up 3%
Shotguns, 690, down 2%
Rifles, 60, up 15%
Handguns, 4910, down 10%
Imitation guns, 2560, up 35%
Serious injuries 430, unchanged
Fatal injuries, 70, down 15%
Actual firearms used in crimes (shotguns, rifles, handguns) 5660, down by 570 or 8% from last year.
Imitation firearms, 2560, up 35% from last year.
Certainly looks like criminals are having difficulty getting guns in Britain, if they're having to turn to imitation weapons.
And it's not for a fear of the sentence, either. Imitations are considered firearms by the courts, as indeed is any object disguised as a firearm.
-
You know, when it comes right down to it there`s not enough bans, laws or denying that is gonna stop murders , attacks, etc from escalating more and more. All that is accomplished by bans and laws is to take away the citizens tool by which to protect his family and property and to empower the criminal even more . The criminal is going to get guns no matter what and bans/laws denying the average citizen the right to own and carry plays right into their hands. Guns have been here for centuries and will continue to be here. Some places have more guns than others. Some places have more crime than others, but gun numbers will continue to grow no matter what regardless of laws passed. It`s the real world we live in not a game of "what ifs" or "I wish". It`s just plain, simple facts.
If your in the bush and old Simba is coming your way with the intent of having you for lunch, then sticking your head in the sand trying to deny his existence and the fact he`s coming your way is going to make you the blue plate special of the day.
I`m in a situation right now, as we speak, that has escalated over a period of a month or two. Right now it is very, very touchy. The dam can break at any minute. I certainly hope and pray it does not, but wishing it away won`t work. It`s the real world.
The county law officers in this area or spread thin and frankly most of them are not up to par. (Note I said most, not all) To sum it up, the situation has not been handled by the SO as of yet. Time continues to drag on and little progress is being made, but it hasn`t stopped the situation from escalating.
It gives me some feeling of comfort to know that my house gun is clean, oiled and a fresh loaded clip is in place if and when this situation comes to a head. I at least have a chance of protecting my home, my wife and myself if the time comes. Without it there would be little chance of defense if and when the time comes.
It`s the real world. It`s not always as we want it, nor is it as it would be if we got our wish list, but it`s what we have to deal with and to to it with the resources available.
-
nashwan... one minor problem with your conclussion....
criminals using fake guns here has gone way up too... so much so that the penalties for cutting the orange thingie off the end of a fake gun sometimes exceed even penalties for real guns...
it isn't that guns are hard to get here or anywhere it's just that fake guns are getting so good these days. Some lower class criminals simply can't afford or, believe it or not, are afraid of real guns. fake guns are lighter and easier to conceal than the same real gun.
lazs
-
Jackal1.
Im not even sure what your trying to say. You and I exist on the same planet dont we?
Good to see you made some sort of intelligient remark with your later post. I was beginning to worry for you. Lets keep it like that so we have something to talk about eh?
So many posts, so little time.
Toad.
I can show you a pen which kills and writes at the same time. Is it a pen or a gun?
I cant explain it it you any further if you dont have it by now.
You are correct when you agree with me that its the human factor. You are incorrect when you say, I believe its the gun.
I dont believe its the gun. Its the human with the gun. How do you regulate and risk manage that? Theres only one way and thats gun control.
Laz
I also believe that whilst we are talking about the U.S in this debate it is not U.S. exclusive and can happen anywhere. It happened here in Oz.
The problem (as I see it. no stats required) is that your belief is ingrained in your culture that your right to carry guns is legal by constitution and therefore untouchable as a subject other than offering it as a breach of your rights should anyone oppose it.
Further to that (current political state of the world not withstanding) that you as a people appear to be suffer a siege mentality. It the murderer isnt going to come through your bedroom window at night, he's going to storm your shores and be met not only with the most powerful Army, Airforce and Navy known to man, but by every swinging d*ck in the sleepy hollows of America who can carry a gun.
Ask yourself why School shooting occurred in the first place. Not what the percieved deterrent appears to be (as you believe it).
Humans had guns who shouldnt have.
-
SPOOK:
a piece of machinery which has 1 purpose and 1 purpose only, to seriously maim or end human life?
Sorry, Spook. This statement is just BS. There are too many examples that prove the contrary to bother listing them.
However, I understand that it's a vacuous, airy-fairy generalization that makes your position seem "correct" to anyone without the intelligence or desire to educate themselves.
SPOOK:
Its the human with the gun. How do you regulate and risk manage that? Theres only one way and thats gun control.
It's the criminal human with the gun. There are ways to regulate that; in fact I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that there are hundreds of laws on the books with that exact purpose.
The problem is that your side desires not to "regulate" the human with the gun. You side desires to prohibit the human from having a gun. Thus, the confiscation in Australia and Britain.
You don't really talk about "gun control"; you folks are for gun prohibition and confiscation.
That approach has totally poisoned the discussion. There are those here in the US that aren't really opposed to somewhat increased regulation of firearms.
However, it's MORE than clear that no matter how much new "regulation" our side supports, endorses and complies with, IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH.
Nope.
The other side always wants more.... until we end up with the Brit/Aussie "solution" which is no reasonable solution at all.
Therefore, there's always going to be opposition to even the smallest increase in "regulation" here. It's the "camel's nose"; no matter what the law abiding gun owners agree too, they realize it will not stop the antis drive to confiscate every firearm extant.
There are reasonable people on one side; on the other side there's the unreasonable confiscators.
Pretty clear where you sit.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Again, I'll point out that Moore couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation in BFC, either... so he just left the subject hanging in his film.
He started off with a interesting hypothesis that it was because the US poplulation is inundated with fear mongering in the media...but then he started wandering all over the place.
-
Kind of like in Fahrenheit 911. He started with an interesting question about how Saudi Arabia influences US politics but then spent the next 2 hours wandering all over the shop.
-
What do you guys expect from Michael Moore? He is a self proclaimed American moron.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Jackal1.
Im not even sure what your trying to say. You and I exist on the same planet dont we?
That`s obvious.
To the second part........... I sorta doubt it. I stick pretty close to mother earth. Is there any intelligent life form on your planet or your perceived , fantasy world?
Steeeeeeeerrrrrrrrriiiiiiikkk kke 3! Your out.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The criminal is going to get guns no matter what and bans/laws denying the average citizen the right to own and carry plays right into their hands. Guns have been here for centuries and will continue to be here.
OK, you're talking about America again. My thread started as a thread about Britain, where guns can be had on the black market for as little as £40 if you know who to ask. BUT... we have no ingrained gun culture, so we don't have gun shops on every corner, or banks handing out guns as a free gifts as an incentive to potential investors to open deposit accounts. As Nashwan's figures show, the largest sector of gun crime is with imitation weapons. The fact that it's still extremely difficult to get a real gun might have something to do with that. So I think the gun control laws must be working.
Still laughing at TalonX, who worships a system by which guns are freely available, resulting in 10000 gun slayings annually - and he thinks *I'm* the one who's misguided. :lol
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
He started off with a interesting hypothesis that it was because the US poplulation is inundated with fear mongering in the media...but then he started wandering all over the place.
it's called "filler".
-
Originally posted by Torque
You have discerned the opposite of my jest, the lack of an emoticon was its failing.
I had to google bluing and got this first hit 'Ma Stewarts Whitening Whites safely since 1883' This is Ma -
(http://www.mrsstewart.com/images/maface.gif)
I freaked out and got overly defensive, I'd be crap with a gun.
-
BEETLE.BEETLE.BEETLE......Not again, why oh why do you love guns so much?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, you're talking about America again. My thread started as a thread about Britain, where guns can be had on the black market for as little as £40 if you know who to ask. BUT... we have no ingrained gun culture,
No sir. I`m talking about "here" as in planet earth.
You may not have an ingrained gun culture, but the fact that you have posted that you are seeing crime involving guns where they have been none before disproves your theory in itself.
Like I said, guns have been here for a long time. They will be more guns. Laws/bans will not work. It only deters those willing to abide by the law the right to defend themself. There is no stopping the manufacture of guns, laws or no laws. There will be more and more. Supply and demand. You even outlaw the making of guns and you have once again fell into the hands of those that don`t play by the rules. Guns, fine quality guns, or easily manufactured. I am supposing you know the history and outcome of our prohibition years here in the states. It only put money in the pockets of those who didn`t care how many laws that were past. Again supply and demand.
My point is , and I`ll say this as delicately as I can, is that where you are at, you are catching up with other parts of the world. It`s reality setting in and your trying to stick your head in the sand and wish it away.
Simply put.... It`s not going to work. Never has, never will.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Conclusion: The issue isn't 'should we ban guns in America to reduce gun crime?' The issue is "What is wrong with American society to give rise to such disproportionate crime rates compared to other gun owning nations?"
Neither the pro- or anti- types seem to be able to answer that one.
This has always been my point. Here in the USA, it isn't guns, it's the sick-minded, incredibly violent sub-culture. How do we fix it? Good question.... Education, education and more education for anyone who wants it. Tuition free state colleges in all fifty states would help. Teaching moral responsibility in all schools would help, instead of the current "blame anything but me" mindset now preached by the present education establishment. One obstacle will always be the determined idiot. The true definition of an idiot is one who is too stupid to recognize his own condition. We have more than our share in the US education system.
You would think that if schools can teach 12 year-olds about condoms, when only a tiny percentage may need them, you would think that the same self-righteous educators would want to teach basic gun safety when 50% of all American homes have a gun.... But no, that's entire too logical. But then again, educators have never been accused of using logic to any noteworthy degree, have they?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Toad,
Spook has made his position clear. It's pretty much the same as beetls. The population cannot be trusted. They must be managed for thier own good. Aparently Australia feels that thier police are not there to protect and serve, they are there to insure the population is carefuly kept in bounds.
Actual lack of misdeed by the vast majority of gun owners is immaterial. All must suffer for the misdeed or potential misdeed of a few.
-
Maverick said "Spook has made his position clear. It's pretty much the same as beetls. The population cannot be trusted. They must be managed for thier own good. Aparently Australia feels that thier police are not there to protect and serve, they are there to insure the population is carefuly kept in bounds. Actual lack of misdeed by the vast majority of gun owners is immaterial. All must suffer for the misdeed or potential misdeed of a few."
As far as I'm concerned, you have it backwards. I am not suffering at all because of not having a gun. I never had one and never wanted one, and even though I could buy certain types of shotgun or even a crossbow (which can be as lethal as a gun at close range) I don't think I'll bother.
No sir, the absence of guns makes us free. I can go out at night and walk across open park land/playing fields, late at night, and feel completely safe. Could I do that in New York? Don't think so. Our system isn't perfect, but it keeps the gun homicide rate down to <100, which is better than 10000+. Originally posted by Jackal1
No sir. I`m talking about "here" as in planet earth.
You may not have an ingrained gun culture, but the fact that you have posted that you are seeing crime involving guns where they have been none before disproves your theory in itself.
Like I said, guns have been here for a long time. They will be more guns. Laws/bans will not work. It only deters those willing to abide by the law the right to defend themself. There is no stopping the manufacture of guns, laws or no laws. There will be more and more. Supply and demand. You even outlaw the making of guns and you have once again fell into the hands of those that don`t play by the rules. Guns, fine quality guns, or easily manufactured. I am supposing you know the history and outcome of our prohibition years here in the states. It only put money in the pockets of those who didn`t care how many laws that were past. Again supply and demand.
My point is , and I`ll say this as delicately as I can, is that where you are at, you are catching up with other parts of the world. It`s reality setting in and your trying to stick your head in the sand and wish it away.
Simply put.... It`s not going to work. Never has, never will.
I disagree. It is working, even if not perfectly. That's why we have fewer than 100 gun homicides each year, compared to more than 10,000 in many years in the US.
As for "seeing crime involving guns where they have been none before", I never said that, so no theory has been disproved. What I can tell you, looking at an old home office report, is that there were more gun homicides in 1974 (51) than there were in 1996 (49). As I have said, repeatedly, the changes are pretty much year on year fluctuations. You can't just look at two years side by side and point to a trend.
But I am concerned by the current "gangsta rappa" fashion of carrying guns. The thing is that thanks to gun control, the only guns they can get their hands on are often old and inaccurate. The story in my original post shows that even though our gun crime is next to nothing compared to yours, there's no room for complacency.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Toad,
Spook has made his position clear. It's pretty much the same as beetls. The population cannot be trusted. They must be managed for thier own good. Aparently Australia feels that thier police are not there to protect and serve, they are there to insure the population is carefuly kept in bounds.
:) Nice try Mav. As you well know however, that it is not the Police who make the laws. they just enforce them. Changes in percieved public opinion and Politicians on the election band wagon change or do not change the law.
Orignally posted by jackal1
It's the criminal human with the gun. There are ways to regulate that; in fact I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that there are hundreds of laws on the books with that exact purpose.
At no time, have I mentioned criminals with guns. Ive spoken about the population as a whole. The kid who gets his fathers gun from the bedroom closet, the aggrieved ex boyfriend who gets his parents gun from the bedroom drawer, the lover who discovers their partner's been infaithful.
Not your everyday stereotypical criminal but your everyday Joe Schoe, takes a packed lunch to work, citizen who's button has suddenly been pressed by whatever motivates the act at the time.
Again, the human variable. A criminal is clear in his intent. He can be monitored and acted upon prior to commiting an act when known. Joe Schmoe by accident or design can not.
-
"I can go out at night and walk across open park land/playing fields, late at night, and feel completely safe."
So can I. My hometown hasn't had a killing of any kind in recent memory (decades).
On the other hand, there are parts of Cleveland where I wouldn't feel safe in broad daylight, let alone at night. Likewise I am sure London has its share of questionable areas.
I don't like "national" solutions for most problems because this is an awful big country. What might be helpful for Cleveland would be insane here.
Judicial reform IS one thing which is needed almost everywhere. If we somehow did away with repeat offenders, crime of all types would take a MASSIVE plunge.
Maybe we should have stiff penalties for all crime, and use criminals as cheap labor for companies so they don't have to re-locate overseas. Yeah, it could work.
J_A_B
-
J_A_B, you're right. I accept what you said.
I'm sure London does have questionable areas, but let us remember that Lazs once visited a "questionable" area of London, but he told us he felt as safe there as he would at a Church bingo night - and that was without his gun. And yet he sleeps with a loaded .45 by his bed when at home in CA. I wonder why that is...
:confused:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But I am concerned by the current "gangsta rappa" fashion of carrying guns. The thing is that thanks to gun control, the only guns they can get their hands on are often old and inaccurate.
Beetle,tight gun control won't solve a social problem like that described in your original post. At the most it can only slow down and limit the damage the gangs can do. From reading that newspaper article it sounds like that type of gang gun culture is a fairly recent phenomenon in Britain. If it's not stomped on and becomes endemic with the gangs then you Brits could have a big problem in the near future. Those wanabee gangsters with their old and inaccurate guns and not much money will develop into hardened criminals with the means (drugs money) to buy all the guns they want smuggled from the continent, ( supply and demand rulz) and have an attitude that would make Reagan and Carter want to quit the plod.
Excel
-
I dunno Beet1e....guess he can do what he wants. My dad, a man of almost 80, sleeps with a light on--he always has. Doesn't mean there's a reason for it, he just does.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Maybe we should have stiff penalties for all crime, and use criminals as cheap labor for companies so they don't have to re-locate overseas. Yeah, it could work.
J_A_B
Yous can't do that.
Cause the wombles at the UN wont let ya.
Excel
-
Bloody UN wombles!
J_A_B
-
Gods, is it this time of the month again already?
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Orignally posted by jackal1
It's the criminal human with the gun. There are ways to regulate that; in fact I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that there are hundreds of laws on the books with that exact purpose.
. [/B]
Although I have written you off as struck out, I would appreciate it if you are going to make an attempt to edit or change something I supposedly stated to pleased be advised it will look more realistic if you use a capitol J in your hack job. Also you might consider using at least some of the content from one of MY posts instead of a statement made by someone else.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I disagree. It is working, even if not perfectly. That's why we have fewer than 100 gun homicides each year, compared to more than 10,000 in many years in the US.
[/B]
Your country is slowly coming out of the ice age. Along with it will be changes and more and more of everything that goes along with it, crime included. You will see an increase in crime and you will also see a large increase in gun numbers accordingly along with the progression of everything else that goes with this. The street and professional criminal is slowly awakening to the fact in your country just how easy it is to take advantage of a near guaranteed unarmed citizen. No amount of laws passed or bans, denial to the public, etc. will stop this from happening. It will just hinder and deny your average citizen the tools by which to protect his family and property from the criminal.
Beet, I`ll give you a tip. If and when you finaly pull your head out of the sand and admit that you are in denial, you will find a Q-tip lightly dipped in baby oil will get those last, hard to reach grains from your ears. :D
-
Originally posted by Excel1
Beetle,tight gun control won't solve a social problem like that described in your original post. At the most it can only slow down and limit the damage the gangs can do. From reading that newspaper article it sounds like that type of gang gun culture is a fairly recent phenomenon in Britain. If it's not stomped on and becomes endemic with the gangs then you Brits could have a big problem in the near future. Those wanabee gangsters with their old and inaccurate guns and not much money will develop into hardened criminals with the means (drugs money) to buy all the guns they want smuggled from the continent, ( supply and demand rulz) and have an attitude that would make Reagan and Carter want to quit the plod.
Excel, you're quite right - I agree with you that tight gun control cannot SOLVE the problem described in my original post. That's why I have said all along that our gun laws do work, but like any other law they do not work perfectly. So I will have to settle for slowing down and limiting the damage that gangs do. Remember, that in about two thirds of gun crimes, the gun is an imitation. But because it has been used to instil fear or to threaten, use of these objects is still considered a gun crime.
Jackal said The street and professional criminal is slowly awakening to the fact in your country just how easy it is to take advantage of a near guaranteed unarmed citizen. No amount of laws passed or bans, denial to the public, etc. will stop this from happening. It will just hinder and deny your average citizen the tools by which to protect his family and property from the criminal.
So what do you suggest? Legalise guns? Arm the public? A gun shop on every street corner? Do that, and we would see our gun homicides skyrocket. "Gangstas" who once made do with an old, inaccurate replica would suddenly be sporting .44 magnums. It would become just like America, and we could see 3000 gun homicides annually. Don't for one second believe that if we legalised guns and armed the public, only the law abiding would have guns. That's pure fantasy. It doesn't work in America, and it wouldn't work here. As our resident sage has already pointed out in this thread, our gun crime is next to nothing. The status quo is not utopia, but it's far preferable to the alternative.
-
Here's another story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml). Violent crime up 11%; 29 gun crime incidents a day.
I blame the Blair government for at least part of this. Blair's government has turned us into a "pocket money" society, in which the state thinks it knows how best our money should be spent. Tax, fat government, out of touch ministers, regulation and meddling is what we have right now. Blair's government has increased police bureaucracy to such a level that the average beat copper spends only half his time on the streets, and the other half producing paperwork. Now the Gov. wants to implement a new procedure whereby a police officer would have to spend 7 minutes filling in paperwork for every time they stopped someone for questioning.
What we need is - more prisons
- tougher sentencing
- less police paperwork
- more police on the streets
- better parenting
- greater powers of school discipline
- an end to government encouragement in creating single parent families
We won't get any of those things with Tony Blair's "New" Labour.
Violent crime soars but Labour puts gloss on it
By John Steele Home Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 22/10/2004)
Levels of violent crime recorded by police soared by 11 per cent in the second quarter of this year, Government figures showed yesterday.
Recorded gun crime rose by three per cent to 10,590 incidents in the year to June - an average of 29 a day and more than double the rate when Labour took power - although firearm killings were down.
There was a 14 per cent rise in offences of violence against the person: 265,800 incidents from April to June compared with 233,600 in the corresponding period last year.
Despite a claim by Home Office ministers that Labour had significantly reduced crime, the recorded crime figures showed that more than 3,000 offences of aggression and violence, from spitting and threats to murder by bullet and blade, take place in England and Wales every day.
Sexual offences, another component of violent crime, rose by 18 per cent, while robbery, the other major component, fell by 15 per cent.
Overall, recorded violent crime rose by 11 per cent year on year, from 273,100 offences in April to June last year to 303,500 in the second quarter of this year.
A different set of recorded crime figures showed that gun crime continued to rise. In the 12 months to June last year there were 10,280 offences. In the year to June this year, the figure rose to 10,590 - more than double the rate in 1997 when Labour came to power.
There was a substantial rise in the use of imitation and replica guns, which are frequently modified to fire. But gun killings fell from 82 to 70, a 15 per cent drop.
The Home Office said there would be a renewed drive against crime in London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester - the areas where about two thirds of offences take place - as well as in Nottingham, where a 14-year-old girl was shot dead two weeks ago.
Home Office sources said a central feature of the drive would be the sharing of information and expertise across the country by the Metropolitan Police Trident team, which has enjoyed successes in tackling gun crime in the capital's black community, particularly in protecting witnesses who have stood up against the gunmen.
Another recent police success, in the Metropolitan area and other urban forces, was reflected in a continued fall in levels of street robberies, which fell by 15 per cent between the two quarter years. Domestic burglaries also fell.
Overall, recorded crime fell from 1,526,100 offences in the three months to June last year to 1,447,100 crimes in June this year. The increases in violence were counter-balanced by falls in property crime, such as thefts from cars, and fraud.
David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, and one of his ministers, Caroline Flint, gave their version of the figures at a news conference in a Labour Party building chaired by Alan Milburn, the party's election co-ordinator.
They chose to focus not on crime recorded by police but on the British Crime Survey. The survey interviewed 40,000 people on their experiences of crime, not just what they reported to police, and levels of offences were extrapolated from that. The survey's crime levels have traditionally been considerably higher than police recorded crime.
The Home Office claims that the survey is "the most authoritative and reliable indicator of crime trends". That is challenged by Government critics, who say that long-term trends for most crimes have been rising since 1997.
Mr Blunkett said the survey showed that crime had fallen by 30 per cent since 1997, with a 42 per cent drop in burglary and a 40 per cent fall in vehicle crime. In contrast to the recorded crime picture of violence, he cited the survey as showing a 26 per cent fall in violent crime since 1997.
Miss Flint said: "Of course just having a gun pointed at you is a frightening experience . . . but around two thirds of firearms offences involve no injury at all."
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "No amount of Government spin will hide the fact that violent crime is out of control.
"There is now one gun crime an hour and by the Government's own admission this is fuelled by drugs, both of which they have let get out of control."
-
"What we need is
more prisons
tougher sentencing
less police paperwork
more police on the streets
better parenting
greater powers of school discipline
an end to government encouragement in creating single parent families"
We need that too, ALL of it, prolly even more than you guys do.
80% of the children born in Cleveland these days are born into single-parent households (Cleveland being the largest city within 50 miles of me). That doesn't likely bode well for the future.
J_A_B
-
Jackal1. Its late here. I may have inadvertently misquoted. I shall check in the morning and stand corrected if thats the case.
-
spook... again... it matters not what you believe if you have no data or, worse yet, the real data makes what you believe... simply wrong. You are using emotion to try to combat real facts and are coming off really badly.
we have everyone admiting that the U.S. is the most murderous country in the world (one of the most) and yet.... we see that when the citizens are given the right to carry concealled... millions of them.... they are the most law abiding group in the country... Where they exist crime goes down.
we see private citizens stopping school shootings but yet we see the shootings increase when we pass stricter gun laws and disarm any potential help.
we have 50-60 million homes with guns in them (as widewing points out) yet.... we are too PC and have too liberal of an agenda to allow the NRA or CMP (civilian markmanship program) to teach GUN SAFETY in schools...
I don't really care if you don't get it in england... I think you are too ingrained with the thought that you have only the rights the government see fit to give you and that your fellow man is an idiot in need of taking care of.
chortle... in two weeks any of a number of places in the U.S. could make you confident and competent and safe with pistol, shotgun and rifle. The queen is wrong... you are a capable human.
I will be interested in how these imported criminals with nothing to lose will be convinced that the queen is right and give up their guns... the future of both our countries gun legeslation will be fun to watch. In the case of englant tho... they can't go any farther. soon they will be subjects surrounded by armed government and police and armed criminals.... oh well... yu can allways hide under the bed.
lazs
-
and beetle... I will concede that you personally are happy that the rights of your countrymen have been taken away. That is not the point.
I do not drink... booze does nothing but cause problems for the country and for me.... If I never see another witty and charming drunk I won't be the least bit unhappy about it. But... I do not feel that I have the right to trample on my countrymens right to drink.
What you are advocating is the very worst of democracy... the majority of your people think that guns are too dangerous for the law abiding to own even tho they have done little or no harm (one school shooting by a nut fer christs sake???)
you can keep your idea of democracy.
spook uses another tact... it is that only he and the people he designates... the elite... have rights everyone else is too stupid and must depend and hope that the elite will have the time and inclination to help.
maverick hit it on the head... it's just that spooks head is in a place that is well protected from the blow.... still... his asscheeks gotta sting.
lazs
-
Lazs, you will never, ever listen to anyone who actually lives in England. You try to make the point that we will soon be defenceless in the face of an armed government as if every house in Britain had a firearm before the ban. That simply wasn't the case. Gun ownership was absolutely miniscule. By your definition we've always been at the mercy of our government... and that didn't stop us carving out the biggest Empire ever seen or being responsible for some of the most radical innovations in technology, business or and society itself. There was no stifling of creativity and at every stage of history, Britain was far more liberal than her neighbours.
I think your anti-British mentality clouds everything you say and you'll do anything to support your dellusions.
-
oh well... yu can allways hide under the bed.
I feel no need to hide under the bed. And neither do I feel the need to keep a loaded .45 beside it. :D What you are advocating is the very worst of democracy... the majority of your people think that guns are too dangerous for the law abiding to own even tho they have done little or no harm (one school shooting by a nut fer christs sake???)
The reason it's only been ONE school shooting is probably because of the relative absence of guns.
I don't think guns would be too dangerous for the law abiding, but there's just NO WAY to arm the law abiding citizens without criminals also becoming armed. I'll take the status quo, thanks - warts and all.
-
ok... so the reason there were no school shootings before the one was because there were guns? and... if there is another shooting it will be because there are no guns?
dowding is right on at least one thing... you had no shootings to speak of before the ban and you don't have any to speak of now.
I say you took away your countrymens rights for nothing.
and dowding... are you saying that you are the only representative of england? that you represent the thoughts of all your countrymen? In the short time I was there I found a few who agreed with me.... they seemed british... had the accent and wierd clothes and all...
lazs
-
I'm sorry Lazs, but you are only partially right:
-Concealed carriers are law abiding: ok
-Basic shooting and safe handling can be taught in a couple of weeks: ok
-the possibility to face a person carrying a concealed gun has a deterrent effect upon criminals: ok
However, what can't be taught other than by intense training is the ability to perform good judgement and accurate actions under heavy stress. A person allowed to carry a gun, even if safe under normal circumstances, can make much collateral damage by trying to solve a stressful situation.
The problem of a school shooting is an 'easy' one: on one hand, you have a complete mad murdering innocents. You're armed. You HAVE to do something to make it stop.
OTOH, you're in a bank and a couple of robbers come in and calmly hold everybody at gunpoint. They seem to act 'professionally'. Everybody is facing a lethal danger, but nobody has been hurt yet. If you draw your gun and try to take down both robbers, you put at risk the life of many innocents. However, the thieves may very well take an hostage to cover their retreat, or just shoot down everybody when they leave...no witnesses. What do you do?
Which brings me to the question: why would some people want to carry a gun when it restricts their freedom (as you said no bars, no alcohol, no sporting events...) and is a serious responsibility?
- Because they are competent and feel that they be a part of public security? ok for me.
- Because they feel threatened? With objective reasons (ok) or are they just a bit paranoid? Hmmmm...
- Because they suffer from an inferiority complex? Ouch....
- Because they want to be like John McCain? Awwww...
If you've been witness of road accidents, try to remember how many citizens present on the scene acted competently and efficiently, how many just stayed in the way a bit shocked doing nothing, and how many turned to be a real hazard (putting themselves close to traffic, smoking near a turned over car, or trying to move or 'fix' a seriously wounded person without any knowledge nor objective reason). Would you like those people to carry a gun next to you?
You said yourself that recoil disengages the brain the first times that somebody shoots a gun. What do you think that bullets flying around will do to his reasoning the first time a concealed carrier is shot at?
-
Spook,
You just made my point eloquently. Thanks. Here is the part I am refering to in your post.
"Joe Schmoe" must be monitored and protected from himself as he MAY do something wrong. The general population is incapable of being responsible for themselves so we must insure they are held to someone elses idea of responsibility even if they have done nothing wrong.
Quote:
At no time, have I mentioned criminals with guns. Ive spoken about the population as a whole.
Not your everyday stereotypical criminal but your everyday Joe Schoe, takes a packed lunch to work, citizen who's button has suddenly been pressed by whatever motivates the act at the time.
Again, the human variable. A criminal is clear in his intent. He can be monitored and acted upon prior to commiting an act when known. Joe Schmoe by accident or design can not. MAY
Beetle,
I am quite aware you are not "suffering" by not having a gun. I have never said you needed one. I also would not try to require that you have one. What I find reprehensible is that you feel perfectly justified imposing your desire on others who have committed no criminal act.
As far as the "feeling safe" situation is concerned, feelings are by nature subjective and everyone has their own "comfort level". It remains that (IMO) imposing your comfort level on others who have done nothing to warrant your control of them is hardly the mark of a free and democratic society. Manipulation of statistics by your government agency to support that position is hardly indicative of a trustworthy organization.
-
exactly mav... those millions of concealled carry guys are a ticking time bomb and just because they have been law abideing for decades....
de seleys.... I think we actually do agree. I think that we may have not made things quite clear tho. I say that in a few weeks... and with proper refresher courses... anyone can be made competent, confident and capable with firearms.... Thats really about all cops get...
that is plenty so far as defending against the criminal and such.... It is in no way enough time to make said citizen a worthy opponent for trained elite armed forces... it is in no way enough time to make them usefull to trained elite forces. Fortunately... they will be facing garden variety criminals and not elite forces.
your training is on a completely different level for a much different target.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dowding is right on at least one thing... you had no shootings to speak of before the ban and you don't have any to speak of now. I say you took away your countrymens rights for nothing.
Dowding is right about another thing too. You never listen to anyone who actually lives in England. Nothing got taken away. Gun ownership has always been relatively minuscule, before 1997 and since 1997. You're fond of reminding us of the gun ban. What are you saying? Are you suggesting I could have gone down to a local gun shop in 1996 to buy a handgun?
Lazs, talking about the gun situation in Britain ---> (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_9.gif)
-
are you saying that there was no ban in 96 and that no citizens rights were taken away?
lazs
-
So these English types you talked to told you gun ownership was widespread in the UK?
-
Lazs, I'm no elite. I was just lucky to get my training when the focus was reevaluated from just punching holes in paper targets to solve tactical situations. The change was not all benefit as we shot a lot less than the previous students.
So we were better trained to take cover, reload, clear jams and act as a team while the pure shooting left to be desired.
I was lucky to have some previous shooting experience before and I rated ok. Some colleagues were reacting correctly but had real trouble to hit anything....
During this training (in 1995), I've had the pleasure to meet Mark Zimmerman who demonstrated the Simunition FX upon us (and left us with a few bruises and some good stories...).
To make my point clearer too, I want to add that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to try and pass the concealed carry exam. But it wouldn't be easy to get this permit.
-
dowding.... no they did not tell me that gun ownership was widespread in england.... what they told me was that they envied my freedom to own and shoot as many firearms as I do..... I took that to mean that they felt their rights were being trampled on.
deselys... agreed... I simply don't feel that all that much training is required to have a cc permit. safe handling and the law and some close range work should be enough.... so far... it has been. Most cc guys don't expect to run into criminal masterminds or organized terrorists... even if they do... they mostly want to just get out of the situation. They know that they will mostly run into the junkie mugger or convienence store bandit who is as afraid as his victims.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Don't for one second believe that if we legalised guns and armed the public, only the law abiding would have guns. That's pure fantasy. [/B]
I certainly never said or implied that only the law abiding would have guns.
Quite the opposite. The way it stands now the only people that will NOT have guns is the law abiding citizen. In other words, a free, unthreatened ticket to do whatever he pleases without a chance for interference.
The fantasy comes in with you believing bans/laws will keep the criminal from having guns. You are just starting to see the tip of the iceburg. As I have said before, you cannot wish it away.
Your hearing a loud whistle and a rumbling noise while standing on the tracks and you are still looking around for any explanation other than a train is about to make a pancake out of you because you are in denial of it.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
OTOH, you're in a bank and a couple of robbers come in and calmly hold everybody at gunpoint. They seem to act 'professionally'. Everybody is facing a lethal danger, but nobody has been hurt yet. If you draw your gun and try to take down both robbers, you put at risk the life of many innocents. [/B]
You would play Ole Billy hell trying to draw a gun from an empty holster.
Concealed carry in a bank is illegal.
-
concealled carry is illegal in a bank or bar but I will try to answer the spirit of deselys question... that of overwhelmng or proffessional adversaries.
being confident and competent with a firearm to me means being aware of your limitations and options.
lazs
-
Keep beat'n it to death, you can never be too sure that five day old maggot powered roadkill is sufficiently dead yet.
Heh look it's still moving!
-
Oops I didn't know that CC was illegal in a bank. My bad, thanks for pointing it to me..
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The fantasy comes in with you believing bans/laws will keep the criminal from having guns. You are just starting to see the tip of the iceburg. As I have said before, you cannot wish it away.
If our gun control doesn't work, then please explain why our gun crime is next to nothing, and why yours is 10,000 gun homicides a year and has even exceeded 300,000 gun homicides in one 25 year period.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
If our gun control doesn't work, then please explain why our gun crime is next to nothing, and why yours is 10,000 gun homicides a year and has even exceeded 300,000 gun homicides in one 25 year period.
We like breaking things.
-
WARNING
The following site consists of GRAPHIC images. Some of you may be upset by them. If so. Then dont be an idiot and look.
For those of you who are not and do venture forth. Ask yourself this.....
If this was a picture of your little girl or boy. Would you still be advocating the consitutional rights of the person responsible to bear arms?
When you click on the link and it comes up. Click on the first slide and then Hit F5 top of your keyboard.
http:// file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Mark/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/4BPBMI7T/PenTrauma%5B1%5D.ppt#605,29,Specific Tissue & Organ Injuries
Lets bring a little reality back into the thread so we understand exactly what it is we are argueing about. There were far worse pictures than this, but noone needs to see them. Again. Picture your childs face there instead.
-
Need to rely on sensationalism to support your position huh spook. Very poor taste. I didn't check your link and I hope other do not. I also hope skuzzy takes notice of it.
-
if your goign to try and make your point with pictures it might help if the link worked....
:rolleyes:
Still your wrong. It won't make a difference. It is not the gun thats the problem.
You dont see it, you never will.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Oops I didn't know that CC was illegal in a bank. My bad, thanks for pointing it to me..
Depends on the state here. In Texas it isn't prohibited to carry into a bank unless there is a no guns sign.
Here's a breakdown by state, no idea if this list is accurate:
http://www.ccrkba.org/ccwstudy.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
snipped
chortle... in two weeks any of a number of places in the U.S. could make you confident and competent and safe with pistol, shotgun and rifle. The queen is wrong... you are a capable human.
snipped
lazs
I dont doubt that at all. My experience with guns is limited to my old mans shootgun when I was a kid and an air rifle although I prefered archery - I like the eye/hand coordination thing. Havent done either since my early teens though.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
If our gun control doesn't work, then please explain why our gun crime is next to nothing, and why yours is 10,000 gun homicides a year and has even exceeded 300,000 gun homicides in one 25 year period.
I have went through this a couple of times . Your country has not caught up to ours yet, but it is getting there. As I said before along with it will come more of everything, including a rise in crime rate. No amount of laws/bans will or can stop it. It`s reality .
Once again criminals, small time or large scale organized, do not by play by anyone`s rules other than their own.
At the point your country is at now you could ban, deny everything, including the metal to make the guns. It would not make one bit of difference . The only thing it would accomplish is to make things easier for the baddies and deny the average individual any form of protection for them and their property.
Beet, has anyone ever mentioned your habit of switching horses in the middle of the stream or the fact that when confronted with something you refuse to acknowledge you start the ole sidestep routine? :D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I Beet, has anyone ever mentioned your habit of switching horses in the middle of the stream or the fact that when confronted with something you refuse to acknowledge you start the ole sidestep routine? :D
Beet1e reminds me of that old southern lawyer adage:
If the facts support your case, argue the facts.
If the evidence supports your case, argue the evidence.
If neither the facts or the evidence support your case, just yell.
Beet1e can't yell in less than 1,000 words. He can't help but expend hours generating monsterous, self-rationalizing posts. I remember when he spents days attemping to justify his flying style when a simple "that's how I enjoy playing" would have been more than adequate.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by beet1e
If our gun control doesn't work, then please explain why our gun crime is next to nothing,
It was next to nothing BEFORE your ban.
You achieved nothing with the ban except a little member-stroking feel-good self-flagellation.
Oh yeah.... you took guns away from folks that were using them properly and lawfully. I guess you could say you achieved that as well.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Dowding is right about another thing too. You never listen to anyone who actually lives in England. Nothing got taken away. Gun ownership has always been relatively minuscule, before 1997 and since 1997.
This is correct and the reason why during the darkest days of 1940, Britain begged the people of America to send over any firearms they could to arm the home guard who were drilling with pitch forks and sticks. Tens of thousands of privately owned rifles and shot guns were collected (tho I don't know how many actually made it there).
One of the factors seriously investigated by Japanese war planners was the effect massive gun ownership would have on contingent plans to invade the United States. 60 million armed American "cowboys" was a daunting challenge.. One of many that Japan realized could never be overcome.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Gtora2. The link does work. You need powerpoint perhaps.
Mav. Sensationalism? I think not. How about pure unadulterated reality. Something this thread is lacking.
Scuzzy is welcome to read it. Its not porn. Its informative information from an informed resource. More of it should be out there.
The gun nuts want to advocate the possession of firearms by the population. Then accept the consequences of your choice. If you cannot deal with that, then id argue you shouldnt have a gun at all.
Many of you speak about your rights and are deliberately ignoring the downside of your wishes. You want guns, you got them. Rather than lying to each other and making out your all urban cowboys that all play a role in being the posse rather than the outlaw, accept the fact that you cannot control the actions of another human being with a firearm and that if you demand the right to keep arms, then that same entitlement must also belong to the other.
Your whole arguement on self defence is ignorant and paranoid.
Your weapons would have to be loaded and actioned at all times to be relevant to it, which flys directly in the face of your other well known arguements of safety and responsible gun ownership. Even Laz would have to agree there. The mans in the business of gun safety. What is he telling those shooting on his range? Nothing less I expect.
Picture the face of one of your loved ones on the body of one of those victims. You wont because the thought of it is abhorrent. Perhaps theres some sense left in you guys yet. Its not a picture id like to imagine.
Drop the stats for a moment, which only detracts and attacks your own arguements anyway and look at the results of a gun shot to the face.
Which is worth more to you?
Your child growing up whole or your self indulgent rights?
Sensationism my white wobbly ar$* Mav. This is the reality of the situation. More than 1 in this thread needs to be awake to it.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Which is worth more to you?
Your child or your rights?
Why do I have to choose? I protect both. If you won't you may lose one or both.
-
Spook
show me how anyone of the guns, anyone one of the gun owners on this board owns resulted in a death of a kid. (or anyone)
I know tons of gun owners. I know none who ever injured another person with a gun.
I know very few who have ever had a gun stolen.
You argument is so bad, I can hardly believe anyone takes you seriously.
You seem to think gun ownership WILL result in deaths in most cases, you are so wrong it is sad.
Gun ownership may result in deaths in a few cases on accident, but far fewer then almost any other accident you can have.
Sure many people die in the US from guns, but the vast majority are criminals offing each other. Most do not own guns legaly. Nor would guns bans stop them from getting guns and using them to off each other.
P.S I have powerpoint and the link still does not work.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Spook
show me how anyone of the guns, anyone one of the gun owners on this board owns resulted in a death of a kid. (or anyone)
You show me yours and ill show you mine. I would hope noone on this BBS has ever experienced it. That doesnt change the facts. It happens. Its more likely to happen in your country than mine. The mathematics is in the numbers.
I know very few who have ever had a gun stolen.
I dont doubt it. Why would anyone need to steal one. Everyone seems to have one anyway
You argument is so bad, I can hardly believe anyone takes you seriously.
Presently im debating. Present me a valid arguement to mine and ill listen. Your yet to do it. A lot of small statements like that above do not qualify as anything more informative than dribble. At least Laz puts some effort into his statements.
You seem to think gun ownership WILL result in deaths in most cases, you are so wrong it is sad.
Whats sad is your assuming. Never assume. It makes an prettythang out of u and me
I have never said what your implying at all. Nor have I said gun ownership is a bad thing. I have said, Gun ownership without control measures in place is a bad thing.
Gun ownership may result in deaths in a few cases on accident, but far fewer then almost any other accident you can have.
Not sure where this statement is coming from. How many is enough for you?
Sure many people die in the US from guns, but the vast majority are criminals offing each other. Most do not own guns legaly. Nor would guns bans stop them from getting guns and using them to off each other.
So the alternative then is to arm the population and hope that return fire is the best deterent? Rather than crime prevention, you advocate a pro-active defense measure instead?
If the Crims can have them, why cant we?
My neighbours neighbour loves guns, he doesnt wear a bandana or have any tattoos,he'll never commit a crime?
My 3 year old cant reach the cupboard door where I keep my gun. Hows he ever going to get at it?
yada yada yada.
Excuses.
P.S I have powerpoint and the link still does not work.
I just checked it again. Its still working for the 3rd time running.
-
The odds are no one on this BBS will ever have to use a gun or have an acident with one. We are all far more likely to die in an automobile accident.
No one worries about that much. I do not worry about either.
I would not consider what you are doing up here debating, I have seen no facts or figures from you. I still have not seen the link, I think it works for you cause the info is local to your system. But hey I could be wrong. I doubt it would be meaningfull numbers. Ask laz for the meaningfull numbers, he has the books with the facts. The fact is concealed carrie permits lower violent crime in the counties they are available in. All the doom cryier like you cried their hearts out when florida passed the laws allowing it, and none of the great tales of doom happend. Of course posting figures won't help us here, you won't believe them.
There are so few accidents now they are insignifigant, almost like lighting strikes. I don't worry about them, I just make sure I and everyone around me when I shoot is safe.
In the US, even in the very upper middle class area and town I live in you can not depend on the police to protect you. The honest ones will tell you this. They come clean up the mess and arrest the guys after crimes. They do not prevent crimes. the avarage responce time in fremont the last time I checked was over 20 minutes. I would rather have a gun if I need it, and maybe get myself killed trying to defend myself then be at the mercy of a criminal with my only hope being I get lucky and the cops come early.
Now I do not live in fear, I know not a single person who does. I do not own guns for self defense. I own them cause I like shooting them, In all likely hood I will never be robbed, I have a large loud dog, still, I would rather have the right to protect myself if the need ever arives then have to depend on people who won't be there.
I have no fear of my fellow law abiding citizen packing a gun, most gun people I know take firearms very seriously. I would rather see people have the ability to protect themselves if they need to them be at the mercy of criminal scum.
The majority of the population is very law abiding. Most criminals are criminals from a young age. Law abiding people just dont wake up one morning and decide to rob a bank. You sound like you suspect everyone, or everyone is guilty untill proven inocent. If thats the case, with you being a police officer it is sad.
Yada yada yada, cant trust anyone, yada yada yada, anyone can be bad.....
True, but thats what rights are about, and your line of though is the first step to taking them away.
Anyone can abuse rights and brake laws, most don't. You have to trust that the Majority will do the right thing, or you get stuck in the loop you are in.
That loop being, that right is toooo dangerous, lets take it away for their own good.
were does it stop?
-
Spook, interesting. How do you feel about alcohol, your right to have it and the deaths it causes?
-
There's another cultural aspect of this too.... if two heroin dealers get in a disagreement, shoot it out and they kill each other..... some folks in this argument think that's a bad thing while some others do not.
-
Exactly toad....
as long as no inocents are hurt isnt that really a win win??:D
Nuke
The two most dangerouse things in the US are eating the wrong foods and driving. At least if you look at highway deaths, and or heart related deaths. Should we ban all unhealthy food and cars so no one can hurt anyone else with a really fatty steak or a mini van??:D
Hell I am pretty sure the smoked tritip I made last weekend was bad for me and cost me a few years, but man was it to die for!! YUM!!
Also guys can you try spooks link so we can see if it is just me, don't wait it if you dont want to, just see if it does anything?
-
Spook,
Last post to you, I've tried to be civil to you and have gotten nothing but lame comments innuendo and sensationalism instead of a dialogue. I no longer have to put up with people and their atitudes any more like I was required to on the job.
Frankly in my career I have seen quite a bit of death and most of it wasn't pretty. It comes in all manners and will come to all no matter what.
You claim the arguement on self defense is paranoid. I would say you have proven yourself to be the paranoid in your posts on this bbs. Your own fears show in your lack of trust in the very population you are supposed to serve. Too much US vs THEM there to be healthy. You were not given any special dispensation to know and tell others how they should live.
It's a hard but usually a quick lesson most Officers learn. You cannot protect people from themselves and they do not want you to try. Perhaps you should come down off of your high horse and face reality yourself.
It's obvious I cannot convince you of my point of view and you certainly are not going to convince me to join you in your fear of the general population. Further "debate" is pointless, so we'll have to agree to disagree. As long as this country doesn't join yours in it's treatment of citizens I'll get off of this very dead horse.
-
Hey Mav
Life on the road treating you good?
You going to be in Cali anytime soon? I would love to buy you a beer if you do, I owe ya for all the cool books!
-
To be quite frank, I and all those I know, if asked "do you want a gun" would reply, "what for?". Our countries are quite different, my American cousins, and comparing the two is an exercise in bafflement.
It seems we have very different foundations, though our intentions appear similar.
-
GTO,
Doing good and having fun doin' nuthin'. I don't know if we are going to CA. anytime in the next few months. We try not to make "plans" we just decide to go wherever it's not too hot or too cold. Only firm plans are to be in Tucson in December for DR. and Dentist visits. After that, who knows. ;)
I'll certainly take you up on that brew if we get to within a couple hundred miles or so of your area.
We have thought about Quartzite and later maybe Vegas for some shows maybe January or February. We'll "talk". :aok
-
Sounds Good Mav,
Let me know!
-
Im more likely to injure myself with eye strain from returning to this thread than being injured in a firearm incident. I dont need the stats, I can feel it.
Nuke.
Its no different to what was said earlier about Bus accidents vs gun accidents. It exhausts me to even think about answering it again. Apples and oranges my friend.
Mav.
I dont believe ive been uncivil to you. You are correct that we agree to disagree. I have posed questions to the participants in this thread and they have been blindsided and ignored.
All ill say is this.
You know the stats/history on the distances involved and the reaction times of Police involved in Police shootouts. They are commonly known in both your countrys Police force and mine. Why? Because we draw them mainly from the benefit of the experience of yours. Ours simply correlate by comparison.
There is no way, these people are going to be able to defend their homes in the way they describe. Its the stuff of fantasies.
You will also find the treatment of my countries citizens far better than your own. Research it and you may even immigrate yourself. Dont worry. We will let you fly your flag here.
Toad.
If Druggies and scum want to play with each other and its ends in their demise, then make no mistake, I have no problem with that either. Unfortunetly, they have a habit of involving innocents in their games as well.
GTora2
The link isnt local. It works. For obvious reasons, I cant repost pictures from it.
I am not advocating that the be all and end all is Police response. I well enough know that often it is inadequate.
The point of my arguement is neither to say let the Police do it all or totally remove guns from the population.
Lawful citizens can still undergo screening processes and be members of Registered Gun Clubs, land owners can have guns for rural purposes and occupations which require a gun can act under either present or to be defined legislation to allow them to conduct their activities lawfully and safely.
Will criminals still get guns? Of course they will. Will all of them have them? No. You make it harder. Thats the best you can do.
Im enough of a realist to know that theres little to no chance of changing an ingrained culture like yours. It is interesting to hear the various arguements that come from the other side of the pond on this debate.
As Mav said earlier. We will have to agree to disagree. I share life in a different world. Thankfully.
-
I agree, on the thankfully part in the last line.
The only thing I fear in this country is that politicians that think like you will slowly erode away my rights.
It will start with guns, and move on from there.
That probably sounds parinoid, but people on this board already fear it is happending with the patriot act.
Most of them are NOT the gun nuts.
AS has been said before, guns are not the problem here, they may make it slightly worse, but I and most gun owners are willing to live with that.
Taking them away, will have such a minor effect it would not be worth it the effort, and I am perfectly willing to side with trusting my neighbors with guns.
-
:lol
I asked the one question the gun nuts cannot answer, which was : If our gun control isn't working, how come our gun crime is next to nothing? And the best answers they could come up with were these: - Martlet: "we like breaking things"
- Widewing: Something about my question being 1000 words long. It wasn't. It was less than 50.
- Mr. Toad pontificating about some ban (again) that took place in 1997 when I wasn't looking.
- Jackal - saying that we're going to catch up to the US in terms of gun crime eventually.
Kind of pathetic, actually. OK, let's stick with Jackal...
Sidestepping? I asked you to explain your point of view. How do you get "sidestepping" out of that? You say our gun control laws are not working, and you're wrong. They ARE working, which is why we our gun crime is next to nothing. US has a guns-4-all policy: 10000 gun homicides annually is the result. There is NO WAY Britain is ever going to become like that.
How are we to catch up to the US when a)there is a 5 year mandatory jail sentence for possession of a gun b)there are no retail gun outlets in the UK?
According to that second article I posted says that 29 "gun" crimes are committed every day in Britain. But two thirds of those are with an imitation weapon. That's around 20 times a day that a criminal is thwarted in his attempts to get his hands on a deadly weapon, and has to make do with an imitation.
I dedicate this post to Widewing - less than 300 words.
My regards,
Beet1e. :aok
-
Widewing said:
If the facts support your case, argue the facts.
If the evidence supports your case, argue the evidence.
If neither the facts or the evidence support your case, just yell.
Beet1e can't yell in less than 1,000 words.
I just checked, and my longest post in this thread was 620 words, not including newspaper quotes, as they are not "my yelling".
What was that you were saying about the "facts"? :lol:lol:aok
-
Their not interested in the facts beetle.
-
I know.
Mr. Toad just repeats the gun ban rhetoric ad nauseum, Jackal accuses me of "sidestepping" when I ask him to clarify something he said earlier, and Widewing accuses me of yelling, and not being able to yell in less than 1000 words. So either I wasn't yelling, or Widewing can't count, or maybe he is just.... wrong?
:lol Great thread! 5 pages... :aok
-
Beet1e--
I think you'll find this amusing. Here's a tidbit from an american newspaper editorial that seems relevant to the subject at hand:
"The arming of oneself in a peaceful community, as every well organized community is supposed to be, and walking about like a moving arsenal, is highly ridiculous and, as events demonstrate, exceedingly dangerous."
I think you'll find it funny because.....
The newspaper is the Tombstone Nugget . The date is 24 Oct, 1882. That is two days before the famous shootout at the O.K. Corral.
The whole gun debate thing is really nothing new.
At one time, cities with bad crime rates used to ban firearms within city limits. I would venture to suggest that some cities could probably benefit from such a measure once again.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by beet1e
:lol
I asked the one question the gun nuts cannot answer, which was : If our gun control isn't working, how come our gun crime is next to nothing? And the best answers they could come up with were these: - Jackal - saying that we're going to catch up to the US in terms of gun crime eventually.
Kind of pathetic, actually. OK, let's stick with Jackal...
Sidestepping? I asked you to explain your point of view. How do you get "sidestepping" out of that? You say our gun control laws are not working, and you're wrong. They ARE working, which is why we our gun crime is next to nothing.
How are we to catch up to the US when a)there is a 5 year mandatory jail sentence for possession of a gun b)there are no retail gun outlets in the UK?
Beet1e. :aok [/B]
Your question had allready been answered and was answered again. The point was you just refuse to acknowledge that you have a problem.
I never said "your" gun control laws were not working. What I did state, numerous times, was that no amount of ban/laws were going to stop the increase in crime and along with this will be an increase in guns numbers. Let`s get this clear again NO amount of bans/laws passed is going to deter this. You are just touching the tip of the iceberg. You do understand that statement don`t you?
You started the thread so there evidently is some concern. Your country has laws in place , but it is still happening, granted on a small scale as of yet. You can bet your sweet bippy that won`t last and you know it. You have allready implied as much by your post and your concern. You stated your concerns more than once using the "gangsta" type catagorizing. That might also be a mistake. You certainly can`t pidgeon hole people in the "threat" or "non threat " area by their appearance or dressing style. Gotti, Capone, and even Barrow were known to be pretty spiffy dressers on most occasions.
Imagine this if you will...... Once a year a community in Longview Texas is invaded with 300 to 500 "biker types"(inserted so you would have a hole to place them in). Harleys, chrome, beards, tattoos, the whole smear. Leaving from a small cinder block biker bar they set out on a mission into the community. Loud pipes, rumbling, mounted machines getting half second concerned glances by the public at large. Are they on their way to do bodily harm to the community or possibly rape, pillage and take over the town like visions of some grade B 60s movie. Naw bro, were just on our way to the local orphan childrens home to deliver the toys from the annual Christmas toy run. Get the picture here. You are looking to label and pidgeon hole everything and explain it away or wish it away. Once again your head is in the sand and you are lost.
Beet, I know for a fact by reading numerous posts by you that you are an intelligent guy. I find it hard to believe that you actualy believe some of the rubbish you are stating here.
One might be led to believe that you are "TROLLING". Perish the thought. lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
:lol
If our gun control isn't working, how come our gun crime is next to nothing?
How come you gun crime was next to nothing BEFORE the ban/confiscastion?
You choose to ignore this glaringly obvious point.
Your "gun control" has essentially nothing to do with your level of gun crime.
It goes back to BFC and Moore's inability to explain why the Canadians have a low rate and lots of guns.
Hint: It's NOT the "gun control laws".
Your laws merely stole the guns from folks that did not contribute to your "gun crime" problem.
In short, you adopted "the old army way" PUNISH EVERYONE... it doesn't matter who is actually guilty. Private Jones shoes not shined? The entire company is put on report.
WTG.
-
facts? what facts? spook, you show us a picture of, I presume (i didn't go there) a child killed by a handgun? that is the facts? The truth is that you have not shown one fact to support your theories and fears and neurosis... You know you can't so you sink to sensationalism.... liberals here try that but most of us have become imune to the silliness of such an "arguement"
we are suppossed to give up our guns and all the advantages they bring and the enjoyment because.... someone got killed?
maverick again is the voice of reason balancing your hysterical hand wringing. I have seen lots of sensless death. Cars and hiking and boating and swimming and taking baths and riding bikes all cause more deaths in the U.S. than accidental death of toddlers by handguns... more toddlers are killed by drowning in 5 gallon buckets.
Oh... and I am not a rangemaster nor do I teach classes. A range facility is under my control. I simply facilitate it's use by about 6 different police forces so that it does not interfere with my plant operations. My experiance is simply as a lifelong hobbiest and I am fortunate to have access to a lot of trainers for police including swat teams. I am very friendly with all of them and we spend time on the subjects I discuss here.... Allmoat all are nike maverick... I have never seen one like spook.
Your arguement is as weak as they get... one incident or picture and destroy an entire countries freedoms and rights?
I can't show you an negative... I can't show you pictures of all the people wjho aren't bloody rags because they had a gun when they needed it... I can't show you the bodies of the kids who weren't killed in school shootings because a citizen with a gun stopped it before it went any further.
so how bout a fact? how bout the FBI fact that bvetween 1.5 and 3 million crimes a year are stopped by firearms... mostly in the hands of citizens... if only a fraction of those were people who would have died...
The website for those saved would take days to load on the fastest computer.
beetle... everyone answered your question....you had very little gun crime before the ban and you have about the same or a little more now... your crime fluctuates but it could be said that it is trending upwards. You certainly didn't make things any better and you might have made em worse.... it appears that the less isolated you are the more you will feel the global effects of drug and terror crimes.
Everyone here who is happy with there gun bans lives on an island of mostly white people... and socialism and tradition of being subjects. You know nothing of what it is to be an American... I am glad of that.
lazs
-
Hiya Jackal! Seems funny to be arguing with you, as you are one of my BBS pizza map allies!
Hmmm.... you start by saying The point was you just refuse to acknowledge that you have a problem.
and about 5 lines later you said You started the thread so there evidently is some concern.
So which is it?
I said our gun crime was "next to nothing". I was merely repeating what Mr. Toad said. That way, he can't disagree with me. But "next to nothing" is a relative value. According to Nashwan's stats, there were 68 victims of gun homicide last year, which is indeed next to nothing when compared with the US total of around 10,000, which comes as a result of guns-4-all.
This thread didn't start out as a thread about America, but about Britain, and Nottingham where my niece is at uni. Yes, it sure was a concern to know that she was walking the streets not far from some drive by killers.
Sure, we have laws in place and yet we still have gun homicides. But as the American model shows, our gun crime is MUCH less than it would be, were we ourselves to copy America, and adopt Guns-4-All. Just because our gun laws don't work 100% doesn't mean they're no good or should be repealed. Same goes for your immigration laws and drug laws... I've estimated that we would have 3000 gun homicides annually if we had Guns-4-All. Right now we have about 68, which is about 2¼% of my G4A projection. Therefore, our gun laws are about 97¾% effective - not perfect, but the best we can hope for.
Mr. Toad, glad you appear to be in good health and excellent spirits! How come you gun crime was next to nothing BEFORE the ban/confiscastion?
You choose to ignore this glaringly obvious point.
...because we never had retail outlets selling handguns or other guns tailor made for criminals, and we never had an ingrained gun culture. I'm really surprised you don't get that. Lazs doesn't either, but that's because he doesn't listen to anyone who actually lives in England. I expected better from you, however. You keep saying things like "In short, you adopted "the old army way" PUNISH EVERYONE... it doesn't matter who is actually guilty." Who is "EVERYONE"? Who are the people who were punished, and had guns forcibly removed from them? Have any of them posted here? I am nearly 50, and I have NEVER met ANYONE in Britain who owned a handgun. So who are these apochryphal people of whom you speak?
To be perfectly honest, I don't know exactly what that gun ban did. Something about making it more difficult to buy some guns? There are no gun shops anyway, so what's the difference?
Lazs - I have told you many times: No-one is asking you to give up your guns. It's too late for that. Your 2nd amendment armed all your criminals. And now your police have their hands full trying to stay in control, and 70 of them each year will die trying.
You made your bed, now you must lie in it - and keep a loaded gun beside it. :lol
Where's Widewing? If anyone sees him, tell him this one is less than 600 words - he doesn't have that many fingers. ;)
-
Beatle, the only question germaine to gun control in America today is, would we be better off as citizens if we were no longer allowed to posess handguns?
The answer, of course, is a resounding "no." Even if I choose not to own a handgun, the fact my neighbors might (or might not) own handguns makes that burgular think twice before breaking into my home.
That's balanced by the availabity of stolen guns being made available to street criminals, but I can honestly say out of the many people I know personally who own firearms, not one of them has ever had a gun stolen.
-
beetle... you act like having a loaded gun by the bed (or anywhere) is some huge hardship that is difficult to bear...
Truth is... putting on silly lap three point saftey belts that are required byu law to drive is ten times more uncomfortable and toublesome... wearing a helmet on a motorcycle all but destroys the experiance.... flotation devices in boast are a pain. Steel toed boot and safety glasses are a pain (these last you wouldn't know about but... trust me)
Still ... it is you who have avoided the question.... what problems have the millions of concealed carry holders caused? How would the criminals in this country be less.... criminal... if they weren't armed and .... what is better, criminals afraid to enter a home with people in it or.... hiding under the bed like your people do?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Beatle, the only question germaine to gun control in America today is, would we be better off as citizens if we were no longer allowed to posess handguns?
Off topic. I began this thread in reponse to crime problems here in Britain, and to observe the fact that the more guns we have, the more crime we will have. No-one can refute that, because ownership of a gun is itself a crime.
Nowhere in my original post did I mention America.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
At one time, cities with bad crime rates used to ban firearms within city limits. I would venture to suggest that some cities could probably benefit from such a measure once again.
J_A_B
Private gun ownership has been banned within the city limits of Washington DC for many decades.... Yet Washington is at or near the top of major US cities in shootings....
It's not guns, it's the violent culture. Banning ownership effects the law abiding, not the criminal, most of whom obtain their weapons illegally anyway.
There are about one million select-fire Assault Rifles in the hands of Swiss citizens, issued by their government. Yet, crimes with these weapons are virtually non-existant. Why is that? They don't have a large, violent sub-culture. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Unless America can eradicate this violent sub-culture, violence will continue practically unabated, largely confined to the poor sections of inner cities. However, since the vast majority of this violence is not experienced outside of these inner cities, few Americans are willing to make the effort to change the conditions that bred the violent culture in the first place. It's much easier to blame the weapon rather than one who wields it and easier to blame the wielder rather than the root cause. The left blames guns. The right blames the criminals. Neither is willing to seriously accept that this nation's great affluence has not filtered down to the least advantaged of society. Now we have a deeped ingrained culture of violence that will not go away without a lot of time, treasure and effort. We know that Welfare is not the answer to poverty. Education, good jobs and hope for the future are the answers. The looming question still remains: Are the American people willing to make the effort? So far, the answer is, "only if it is easy to do." And, that means it won't get done anytime soon.
Then we have mainstream religion in America, which has failed miserably at its commission of helping the poor. Yes, we will always have poor people and families. But, do we need 20 million dollar edifices to man's conceit, which we call churches, temples and mosques? Do they need $20,000 pianos? Do ministers need a Lexus to serve their congregations? Meanwhile, they insist that every family hand over 10% of their after tax income to sustain their glorious churches. Meanwhile some church members send their kids to school on empty stomachs or can't afford to pay the power company bills or provide even basic medical care because they can't afford insurance premiums and afford to maintain even a basic level of sustanance for their families at the same time. It seems that America's generosity extends to everyone but their own. Oh brother, don't let me get started on organized religion and its utter failure to serve God's people, world wide.
Ronald Reagan was right when he said that "America is a bright shining light on a hill". But that light grows dimmer as we continue to ignore our poor, our sick and those without a shred of hope for a better life. When this nation finally gets moving, it can do anything it resolves to do. We lack that resolve when it comes to changing the worst in our culture. When we do change the culture, gun violence will be a thing of the past. But as long as senseless violence is seen as a badge of honor and a thing to be admired, it's not going to change. Banning any type of gun is a futile gesture. How many prisons do we need to build? If all we do is treat the symptoms, we'll never cure the disease. Both the left and the right in this country are currently in the business of distributing bandaids. And they even argue about which bandaid works better... Yet the disease goes untreated.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Still ... it is you who have avoided the question.... what problems have the millions of concealed carry holders caused?
In order to arm millions of law abiding CC holders, it follows that you are going to need huge chains of retail outlets selling guns, or mail order companies - whatever. Your big mistake was to think that only the law abiding would have guns. In creating thousands of outlets where guns can be purchased or otherwise procured, you created the biggest society of armed criminals on the planet.
-
Well said Widewing. Changing our violent culture is far easier said than done however. Respect for others is the needed catalyst for this change and I hold can only be instilled in someone at an early age by parents.
-
widewing is mostly correct and addresses the subject that michelle moore was afraid to... a culture of violence amung the less privilidged and a culture of extreme greed from others.
That pretty much explains why there is no problem with the concealled carry guys.... they are the average citizen and don't fit in either class... those who would go armed generally are more moral than those who are hopless or sociopaths.... in short... average citizens.
Those who murder out of poverty and a culture of violence will become even more bold with less guns.... this is a fact show by data... those who are well off but sociopaths will murder no matter what they have to do.
moore attacked the wrong groups and it made his "documentary" look irrellevant... he did so because he is too far left to allow facts to spoil a good propoganda film... can't show blacks as bieng disproportionately murderous no wcan we? wouldn't be PC even if the data shows that thier population commits over half the murders with firearms and that is is far more likely that a black will murder a white than vice versa.
I don't think we will ever be able to have a sensible discussion about something as fundamental as firearms and rights. emotion and ignorance and..... even stuborness from us pro gun rights people will allways taint the arguements.
Fundamentaly you either believe that it is your right to protect yourself and family with the same or better means than those who would do you harm or you don't.... just that simple.
lazs
-
beetle... we were allready well armed long before there was a need for concealled carry laws. I don't like your plan of making sure that the only person I will ever see with a gun is a criminal or a member of the government.
lazs
-
Someone posted earlier, and I dont see what is so difficult to understand about it:
There are so many guns in circulation in the USA that now trying to control them would be completely futile. There is no black market for guns because they are so freely available.
In the UK, the outlawing of guns works well because there are so few guns in circulation. It is therefore much easier for the authorities to control.
Finally, in the UK the majority like the gun laws the way they are. A similiar situation exists in the US afaik.
Dunno why everyone has to try to convince the other that their way is better for everyone.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Where's Widewing? If anyone sees him, tell him this one is less than 600 words - he doesn't have that many fingers. ;)
I have one finger available... ;)
Your first post was 1,596 words long (including the cut and paste material). Your total to this point is: 7,478 minus the quoted material you respond to.
Heck, you're almost 10% into a doctorate thesis! Think of the possibilities if that effort had been towards something productive!
Beet1e, you should realize that I'm just tugging on your cord....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing - As I said, the newpaper report was not written by me, and was therefore not *my* yelling. ;)
Your latest post was very good. I see you almost understand the problem! I discussed this with Mr. Toad some days ago in this thread... Originally posted by Widewing
Private gun ownership has been banned within the city limits of Washington DC for many decades.... Yet Washington is at or near the top of major US cities in shootings....
It's not guns, it's the violent culture. Banning ownership effects the law abiding, not the criminal, most of whom obtain their weapons illegally anyway.
There are about one million select-fire Assault Rifles in the hands of Swiss citizens, issued by their government. Yet, crimes with these weapons are virtually non-existant. Why is that? They don't have a large, violent sub-culture. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.
I think your viewpoint is slightly biased. Guns are not the problem. People are not the problem. But guns and idiots are two precursors which, although harmless in isolation, combine to produce a deadly cocktail.
The ethnic poor/criminal subculture does not itself result in a high homicide rate. We have those problems in Britain, but our homicide rate is relatively low compared to yours.
Guns by themselves do not result in homicides. Many are in the hands of the Swiss, but there isn't a problem because Switzerland has no real criminal underclass - no drug gangs, no turf war shootouts...
So I don't blame the guns and I don't blame the people. As I said before, it's the two together that causes the problem. Britain has one precursor. Switzerland has the other. Unfortunately, the US has both.
We in Britain can't get rid of our criminal underclass, but we can sure as hell do the next best thing which is to target the supply of the other precursor to the explosion of crime. Right now we're succeeding, but we're slipping. We need more prisons, tougher sentencing, more police etc. - all the things I mentioned in that earlier post. We do NOT need gun shops and an armed populace. To go down that road would open a Pandora's box. We have seen what happens to crime/homicide when a society arms the populace. It cannot be done without also arming the criminal underclass - with dire consequences, as the US example clearly demonstrates.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
To be perfectly honest, I don't know exactly what that gun ban did. Something about making it more difficult to buy some guns? There are no gun shops anyway, so what's the difference?
At last. You are on the verge of grasping this concept.
Your gun ban DID NOTHING. It changed NOTHING.
Your crime stats reflect that fact.
In both Britain and Australia, the bans/confiscations merely deprived law-abiding people of legitimate recreational opportunities (or made the process of performing those opportunities) pointlessly cumbersome and onerous.
The same would be true here. Were we to follow the ban/confiscation model, our crime stats wouldn't change significantly. The criminals wouldn't participate and the law-abiding folk that complied and turned in their guns aren't the ones that drive the stats up.
So, again, it isn't your gun laws or even your lack of guns that provide your low stats. The Canadian example stands in clear contrast to that theory. They've got plenty of guns, much less draconian gun laws and stats that rival yours.
Clearly, it's more than gun laws, bans, confiscations or availability of guns. It's much more based in societal mores I think.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We in Britain can't get rid of our criminal underclass, but we can sure as hell do the next best thing which is to target the supply of the other precursor to the explosion of crime. Right now we're succeeding, but we're slipping.
If only you would open your eyes and examine what you yourself say.
Yes, you will always have a criminal underclass.
Target the supply? LOL! By your own admission, there never really WAS a "supply" in England. No guns, remember? No gun shops on every corner. It should be clear even to YOU that your criminal underclass is arming and re-arming from sources that NEVER were legitimate.
So, England never had many guns and certainly never had the gun distribution system of the US. Nonetheless, your criminals have never had problems getting firearms and they don't now.
In fact, by your own admission, the situation is getting worse, "slipping".
This despite harassing the normal law-abiding citizen in the pursuit of long standing, accepted recreational opportunities. Or depriving him of those opportunities all together. You should be so proud.
You bans didn't change your criminal stats, in fact you say it's getting worse... but at least you showed those law-abiding target shooters and hunters a thing or two!
Bravo, old chap.
-
Originally posted by Toad
At last. You are on the verge of grasping this concept.
Your gun ban DID NOTHING. It changed NOTHING.
SO WHAT? WHO GIVES A CRAP?
I know I don't. I ask you YET AGAIN - WHO are these law abiding people who were deprived of legitimate recreational opportunities? Name names, or something. Because I don't know who you're talking about. And read Dowding's post: Gun ownership before ban: Sod all. Gun ownership after ban: Sod all. While you're at it, reread my post: Guns don't kill people. Idiots don't kill people. Guns + idiots (the US has both in "no trumps redoubled") are the problem. Jeez, how many more times do I have to type it... :rolleyes: Target the supply? LOL! By your own admission, there never really WAS a "supply" in England. No guns, remember? No gun shops on every corner. It should be clear even to YOU that your criminal underclass is arming and re-arming from sources that NEVER were legitimate.
Yes, I KNOW that. :rolleyes::rolleyes: <-- one was not enough. That's why guns are difficult (but not impossible) to get here. And that's why we have probably many thousands of them, but we don't have millions. And those that the gangstas can get tend to be old, unreliable and inaccurate - ie not .44 magnums, thank cod. Nonetheless, your criminals have never had problems getting firearms and they don't now.
Wrong. That's why so many resort to replicas - two thirds of all "gun" crimes.
I never said we had "no guns". This thread was started in response to a particular gun related situation.
Try again, ole Bufo. Your grand entrances into my threads are becoming such that the toastmaster has to ask who you are, and whether you've been invited to the party. Pretty soon, he'll ask to see your invitation. S'OK, you're always welcome in my threads. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
SO WHAT?
So what?
It was POINTLESS, that's what.
It was just stupid.
It didn't make you folks any safer, it just made things more difficult for people who NEVER WERE doing anything wrong.
Name names? I could, old chap. Easily over a dozen. But I don't think it would be appropriate on a BBS without their permission. Recall that I DO visit England and I do interact and actually hunt and shoot with English citizens. The ones that DO maintain some truly grand English traditions of the field.
Also you ignore the "supply" thing, deliberately I'm sure.
Look... your culture NEVER had a huge supply/distribution system like ours. Further, your criminals had far less access to such a system than ours do/did. So your criminals were getting their guns illegally and STILL do. You bans, laws and confiscations DID NOT AFFECT THAT in the least. In fact, as you say, your situation is getting WORSE post-ban/confiscation.
So your "solution" to your non-existent problem was pointless.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
So what?
It was POINTLESS, that's what.
It was just stupid.
It didn't make you folks any safer, it just made things more difficult for people who NEVER WERE doing anything wrong.
Name names? I could, old chap. Easily over a dozen.
A dozen?! Why, that's a whole 0.00002% of our population. :eek::eek::eek: If I'd known the gun ban was going to have that much of an impact, I might have had a word with Tony at the Queen's birthday garden party at BP to suggest he rethink it. (I couldn't make the garden party that year ;))
-
Well, Beet, if I actually knew 95% of your population I could be a leading source. I'm sorry I haven't met every single Englishman. My fault, I guess.
I can certainly say 100% of the English folks I hunted with think the ban was stupid.
Why?
Because it WAS stupid. Didn't change a thing. In fact, this guy that knows everything has even posted that
To be perfectly honest, I don't know exactly what that gun ban did. Something about making it more difficult to buy some guns? There are no gun shops anyway, so what's the difference?
Exactly. NO difference.
Pointless. Stupid.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
I can certainly say 100% of the English folks I hunted with think the ban was stupid.
What, BOTH of them?
-
No, I suppose one would have to put it at 8 of the really rich guys, one of whom ran the largest food/grocery company in England and then add in about 30 folks that I shot/beat/picked up with on "beaters day" at the Shoot.
Call it about 40.. but I don't recall all their names. A dozen or so I do.
I note that you don't challenge the stupidity of the ban.
-
Originally posted by Toad
At last. You are on the verge of grasping this concept.
Your gun ban DID NOTHING. It changed NOTHING.
Your crime stats reflect that fact.
In both Britain and Australia, the bans/confiscations merely deprived law-abiding people of legitimate recreational opportunities (or made the process of performing those opportunities) pointlessly cumbersome and onerous.
The Brits gun ban may have done nothing, but then again, they were hardly a country which possessed a people riddled with gun ownership, now were they.
The Aussie gun ban, did do something. Within 2 years of it being brought in, even I (without my stats) could see the difference in the incidents I attended. No it didnt completely solve the problem. Nothing will, but it went a long way to doing something about it.
Your country men say its too ingrained, it can never change. I say it can providing you have the political base, strong enough to carry it out. Thats why I see it a long distant shot in your country. Your politicians are more willing to sell their souls for the popular vote and getting that one past your population would be one huge political headache. To say its impossible however is not true. Difficult in the extreme? I'll wear that.
Im curious Toad. What exactly were you hunting in the rolling green hills of England?
-
The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales (http://www.ssaa.org.au/FailedExperiment.pdf)
November 2003
by Gary A. Mauser
....Australia
Following shocking killings in 1996, the Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearm legislation in 1997. Unfortunately, the recent firearm regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer. The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.
The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive United States stands out against the trend in Australia. The divergence between Australia and the United States is even more apparent with violent crime. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia.
Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.
And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or maybe even better equipment. Think of how many lives might have been saved.....
Your stats? Here, right from your government sources and mine.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098571611_spook1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098571651_spook2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098571675_spook3.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098571699_spook4.jpg)
Yeah.... really supports your position. NOT.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
facts? what facts? spook, you show us a picture of, I presume (i didn't go there) a child killed by a handgun? that is the facts? The truth is that you have not shown one fact to support your theories and fears and neurosis... You know you can't so you sink to sensationalism.... liberals here try that but most of us have become imune to the silliness of such an "arguement"
You seem a tad upset Laz. Want a tissue?
The reason I dont poke around the internet (extensive and accurate resource that it is) is that I could think of nothing more boring than doing so.
Further more, you ignore the intolerant numbers of your own stats and in the place of intellectual based criticism of those numbers, you hold them up as some form of shining example, for your country, which makes the rest of us shudder when we think of the mentality behind one capable of doing so.
Reality is not sensationism Laz. Those pictures (which are not of child victims) show what happens when your disney land fantasy of a Willy Wonka gun world goes astray. Deal with it you gun weilding peanut. You are not "immune" to the silliness of it. You are ignorant.
we are suppossed to give up our guns and all the advantages they bring and the enjoyment because.... someone got killed?
10,000 someones wasnt it?
maverick again is the voice of reason balancing your hysterical hand wringing. I have seen lots of sensless death. Cars and hiking and boating and swimming and taking baths and riding bikes all cause more deaths in the U.S. than accidental death of toddlers by handguns... more toddlers are killed by drowning in 5 gallon buckets.
Maverick is one voice. I am another. Cars, boats, hiking boots and riding bikes are not designed for the express purpose of killing. Climb out of your target butts for a moment and wake up.
Accidental deaths of toddlers by handguns in the US vs toddlers drowing by accident in buckets eh?
And deliberate deaths? Please get me the stats on that one! LOL.
Oh... and I am not a rangemaster nor do I teach classes. A range facility is under my control. I simply facilitate it's use by about 6 different police forces so that it does not interfere with my plant operations. My experiance is simply as a lifelong hobbiest and I am fortunate to have access to a lot of trainers for police including swat teams. I am very friendly with all of them and we spend time on the subjects I discuss here.... Allmoat all are nike maverick... I have never seen one like spook.
Ahh. So you are a landowner. The way you talk, you'd swear the Police forces over there owed some form of allegiance to you based on your incredible firearms knowledge.
Just so I get this straight. I do tend to get confused by your posts at time. You KNOW some policemen and they use your land to shoot?
Forgive me. Its now obvious to me, the quality and depth of knowledge you possess when you talk about Police mentality and their beliefs in this subject matter.
My ignorance is simply inexcuseable. I'd smack myself if I couldnt stop laughing.
Your arguement is as weak as they get... one incident or picture and destroy an entire countries freedoms and rights?
Now this is the best yet!
You are a countrymen of a Nation under percieved Terrorist threat and I well imagine a patriot, no?
How many freedoms and rights, do you percieve you have lost under the Homeland Security Act?
Gun Control is not about losing a freedom or a right as you well know Laz. That is a pretty p*** poor excuse my friend for nothing more than a "Paranoid" emotional response to an infringement on your consitutional rights.
Given what you tell me about yourself, you would not even be effected by Gun control with the exception of the types of firearms you may be allowed to possess. Guess you'll have to throw away that Commie deterent M60 Machinegun! Ahh the horror!
I can't show you an negative... I can't show you pictures of all the people wjho aren't bloody rags because they had a gun when they needed it... I can't show you the bodies of the kids who weren't killed in school shootings because a citizen with a gun stopped it before it went any further.
Good. Listening to you blokes is negative enough!
so how bout a fact? how bout the FBI fact that bvetween 1.5 and 3 million crimes a year are stopped by firearms... mostly in the hands of citizens... if only a fraction of those were people who would have died...
FACT. Give me the stats that go with it, rather than your Michael Moore version of the truth. Give me the stats that state, How many civilians were killed attempting to defend their homes, loved ones or businesses for that same period.
Give me that stats that show how many of these crimes were induced and escalated by the presence of a firearm and how many that were not. That without the escalation of violence produced with the presence of a firearm, that death or serious in could have been avoided.
You show a one sided arguement with every post that means absolutely sweet b*gger all to me mate. Without the rest of the information, your information isnt worth the ink it would take to print out this page.
Everyone here who is happy with there gun bans lives on an island of mostly white people... and socialism and tradition of being subjects. You know nothing of what it is to be an American... I am glad of that.
Nations of pure white people! Not only do you show a distinct racist attitude in this comment, but I wonder what plane of existance you are on. Where does such a place exist? Not in my country and not in Beetles. Uzbackofnowherestan perhaps?
If you are "A" typical of the American people. Im bloody glad I dont.
lazs [/B]
-
February, 2000
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws
Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.
Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.
Firearm-Related Homicide
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.
Gun-Related Death by Any Cause
The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."
-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6
Assault and Robbery
Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.
"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999
Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania
"A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been successful in Tasmania."
-- Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999.
Curbing Gun Proliferation in Australia
In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.
By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered the composition of its civilian arsenal.
In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws.
Other Countries
Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.
In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.
Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.
A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.[/b]
US GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Guns and domestic violence make a deadly combination. Over half of family murders are caused by firearms.[1] Firearms assaults have been found to be 12 times as likely to result in death as non-firearms assaults.
Women as Victims in Firearms Homicides
In 2000, firearms were responsible for the deaths of 1120 white women, 615 African-American women, 220 Hispanic women and 104 others.
Most women are killed by their intimate partners and over two-thirds are killed by guns.
In 2000, 735 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 226 men.
From 1990 to 2000, over 67 percent of spouse and ex-spouse victims were killed by guns, while 57 percent of girlfriends and 47 percent of boyfriends were killed by guns.
African-American and Hispanic females, especially young women, remain at high risk.
In 2000, among young women age 15 to 24, 191 African-Americans and 112 Hispanics were killed by firearms.
The African-American rate was 5 times and the Hispanic rate 2 times the rate of white young women.
Guns in the Home are Risk Factors for Domestic Violence
In 1997, the presence of a gun in the home made it 3.4 times more likely a woman would become a homicide victim and 7.2 times as likely she would be a victim of homicide by a spouse, intimate or close relative.
Children are also seriously affected by gun violence in the home. Children who witness the use or threat of a firearm exhibit greater behavioral problems than those who do not.
ECONOMIC COSTS OF GUN VIOLENCE
Medical costs of gun violence put a terrible burden on health service providers and governments. When indirect costs of gun violence - loss of productivity, mental health treatment and rehabilitation, legal and judicial costs - are figured in, gun violence costs the US over $100 billion annually.
Medical Costs
In a recent study, the average costs for treating gunshot wounds were:
- $22,400 each for unintentional shootings
- $18,400 each for gun-assault injuries
- $ 5,400 each for suicides.
Over the course of these victims' lives, medical treatment will amount to $1.9 billion.
Other Indirect Costs
Along with direct medical costs, gun violence involves loss of productivity, mental health care, emergency transport, and insurance administration. A 1997 study estimated direct and indirect medical costs at:
- $2.8 million per firearms fatality
- $249,000 per hospitalization for gunshot wounds
- $ 73,000 per emergency room visit and release for gunshot wounds.
With the cost of health skyrocketing, these costs are far higher today.
The Los Angeles Times found in a 1994 shooting of a teenage victim who survived as a paraplegic that medical care, disability payments, rehabilitation, police and trial costs amounted to $1,091,768. The Washington Post and U.S. News and World Report have both found total costs in similar cases to exceed $1 million.
The Annual Bill To The Nation Annual costs of gun violence in the US have been estimated at between $100 billion and $126 billion.
Costs only for young people under the age of 24 have reached $41 billion.
Who Pays?
Most victims of gun violence are uninsured and the public pays!
- Of $4 billion in medical costs in 1995, the public paid about 85 percent.
- Of victims hospitalized for gunshot wounds in California in 1996, 81 percent were uninsured
FIREARMS AND SUICIDE
Overview
In 2001, suicide by all means took the lives of 30,622 people in the United States: Of this number, 55% (16,869) were completed using a firearm.
In 2001, gun-related completed suicides accounted for 16,869 (57%) of all gun related deaths in the U. S.: that's 46 lives every day that are lost to gun violence.
In 2001, was the third leading cause of death for ages 15-23 and 25-34, accounting for 54% and 51% respectively, for completed suicides using firearms.
A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Children and Teens (Ages 19 and under)
In the United States, we loose 928 children and teenagers every year to completed firearm-related suicides. This accounts for more than two young lives lost per day.
Of the total 1,890 completed suicides in 2001 for ages 19 and under, 49% were firearm-related.
Guns are the method used in 88% of male teen suicides and 12% of female teen suicides.
Senior Citizens
Of the total 5,393 completed senior citizen (ages 65 and older) suicide deaths in 2001, 73% were firearm-related.
Of all senior citizen firearm-related suicides in 2001, males 65 and over comprise 79%.
-
In 2001, gun-related completed suicides in this country took the lives of:
14,454 =
Males (87%)
2,132 =
Females (12%)
15,174 =
White (91%)
1,090 =
African-American (6.6%)
813 =
Hispanic/Latino (5%)
133 =
Native American/Alaska Native (.8%)
189 =
Asian/Pacific Islander (1.1%)
322 =
Other (1.9%)
Guns in the United States - Easy Access to Deadly Weapons
There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. - 65 million of which are handguns.
Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.
In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns.[3] Additionally, it is estimated that 1 to 3 million guns change hands in the secondary market each year, and many of these sales are not regulated.
Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence
In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths - 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.
For every firearm fatality in the United States, there are two non-fatal firearm injuries.
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.
In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.
Gun Violence - Young Lives Cut Short
In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.
In 1998, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age - second only to motor vehicle crashes.
In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.
From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.
Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.
Guns in the Home - A Greater Risk to Family and Friends
For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
The Economic Costs of Gun Violence - All Americans Pay a High Price
A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.
The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter.
At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Theres some stats back at ya.
-
Yeah, old stats.
The charts I posted are from the Australian Institute of Crimnology, dated 2003.
They show numbers a bit more recent then yours I believe.
See the sharp upward spike in Aussie homicides in 2001/2002? Your stats refrence 1997/1998 almost exclusively. In other words, it's getting worse for you Aussies, just like the Brits.
Same with assaults and robberies.
Next time you come "back at ya", you might want the recent stats.
-
My stats cover a larger area than just 1 year.
Further more they are also closer to the time gun control was initiated, giving a more accurate presentation over a number of years from the direct effect. Anyone can have a bad year.
Put 2003 down to socio economics, increased drug trade from the Asian Triangle, increased mental health issues or whatever floats your boat.
-
Spook, what about looking into banning alcohol, since banning guns was so effective in elimating so many tragic deaths?
I know you said it's apples and oranges, but it's not. The point being that banning alcohol, like guns, should be considered, since alcohol caused so many deaths and homicides.....many more than guns have.
Why no ban on alcohol?
-
I dont know Nuke. I do know that currently I am petitioning to have sex banned to stop unwanted pregnancies. Im sure to get it through Parliament. I just need a few signatures. Will you help?
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
I dont know Nuke. I do know that currently I am petitioning to have sex banned to stop unwanted pregnancies. Im sure to get it through Parliament. I just need a few signatures. Will you help?
In other words, you can't answer.
-
Hey, if alcohol is okay, why is cocaine taboo?
Why are drugs so available? I thought they were not legal?
-
I'm glad we have real cops in America.
-
Im glad for you to. You need them more than we do.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Im glad for you to. You need them more than we do.
Why do you even bother mate?
Tronsky
-
Well, having read through the whole thread, yeah, it was a slow morning, I could only find this
Originally posted by Momus--
Jesus, does this argument ever go away?
1. There are so many guns in circulation in the USA and ownership is so culturally engrained that gun-control for the purpose of reducing gun-related deaths would be a pointless measure. Gun ownership for self-defense thus becomes a logical consequence.
2. In the case of the UK, there are are still relatively few guns in circulation and indeed this was also the case prior to the handgun ban. Controls restrict the supply and keep black market prices relatively high.
3. Blanket comparisons between the two cases are basically nonsensical. The US is basically screwed when it comes to firearms in the hands of criminals, so arming the general populace makes some sense from this perspective. The UK however is by and large a lot less screwed, so the mothod of containment for the problem, i.e. reducing the supply, makes a lot more sense.
4.The two main protagonists in this ongoing discussion are either trolling or idiots for not getting point 3.
Thank you.
Was the most sensible thing I could find, and yet went largely uncommented.
I can't believe that this is still top of the O'club today, as it was last time I looked in here , which was months, if not years, ago.
Talk about flogging the greasy marks left by long decomposed horses.
And beetle - quit blaming bliar for everything - the man is a US glove puppet, no better reason than that to oust the f*cker. WMD my ass.
-
Mr. Toad said "I note that you don't challenge the stupidity of the ban." Why should I? It made bugger all difference to me personally. Let us not forget that you did not challenge the "stupidity" of banning head shops in your country in 1981, despite the fact that the ban probably made bugger all difference to US drug usage. I don't suppose for one moment you ever made a purchase at a head shop - ah, that would explain it. And I never bought anything at a gun shop. There you have it! :aok
I don't call gun control in Britain a "failed experiment". Just read Nashwan's remark in my sig. No further comment required.
Bounder - yes, Momus came up with an excellent reply one time. He said 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.
But you're wrong. It's Blair's fault. I blame him for everything.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
My stats cover a larger area than just 1 year.
Further more they are also closer to the time gun control was initiated, giving a more accurate presentation over a number of years from the direct effect. Anyone can have a bad year.
Put 2003 down to socio economics, increased drug trade from the Asian Triangle, increased mental health issues or whatever floats your boat.
The graph covers the pre-ban and post-ban years up to the most current collected data.
What it shows is that post-ban there was a very slight drop in homicides for 3~4 years with a sharp increase back to essentially pre-ban levels.
In short, it shows your ban did nothing... just like the Brit ban.
Let's just keep watching. You're happy with your system since the elite like yourself are not affected and the great unwashed worthless mass of your fellow countrymen have been put in their place.
I'm happy with our system.
Good overall situation.
Beet.... so as long as a stupid, pointless law doesn't affect you personally, you have no problem with it, right?
Jeez, there's an attitude we've seen before. Martin Niemöller springs to mind.
-
spook... whats the matter the data is right in front of you... your ban in australia made things worse. Your homicides are back up as toad shows.. as are about all other crime... it is also trending upward not downward.
I don't know where you get your impressions of what I do or don't do (certainly not from anything I have written) but I have never claimed to train police or anyone or to run any kind of training (it appears that you still have no idea what I do).... I am certain that I know a lot more American cops than you do... I am also certain that maverick knows a lot more American cops than you do. Every survey done amoung rank and file police shows that what maverick and I say about how these cops feel is correct and that you are in la la land. Cops support the right of cityizens to be armed and to have concealled carry.
I have never claimed to be anything but a hobbiest and lifelong gun owner that happens to work on land that is used for police training. I also know a few guys from frontsight and heard their views. Gun owners here are a community and very friendly with each other. you probly wouldn't understand.
Yes... we have 9-10,000 gun homicides a year here. We would have those homicides regardless. At least with guns tho... we have less crime. if we are preventing 20,000 murders a year by exercising our rights then I guess it is a good thing. FBI stats show that millions of crimes are prevented every year with firearms. Surveys in prisons show that criminals are more afraid of armed citizens than of cops.
now you are including suicides as being the fault of guns...
you show "children" killed at 928. most of these are 15-17 and have criminal records.
What is your source for the American data? The medical data and such sounds suspiciously like the debunked handgun control incorporated's hysterical and false data (right up your alley). even if there are costs involved... so what? freedom and saving lives shouldn't have a dollar sign attached. any monetary cost is worth it. Freedom from petty little tyrants like yourself and criminals is worth the cost in lives and in a real sense... undoutably saves lives.
So far... every country that tries to control homicides and crime by taking away law abiding citizens rights to own and bear arms simply makes things worse.
But... like I said... it is a fundamental difference of opinion... I don't think the government has the right to decide how I defend myself and family agianst those who would do us harm...
lazs
-
and... Just out of curiosity spook... What is it do you think it is that qualifies you to be armed and law abiding citizens to not be?
seems to me that over here at least.... you would be one of the last people I would want to see be armed.... what with your low regard for your fellow man and all...
Maybe if you allowed everone who wanted a gun to have one your homicide rate would drop down to our levels...
I mean.... have you ever seen anyone murdered? imagine all the murders your backward policy is causing... and the medical and monetary grief your misguided policies of gun bans are causing... have you no pity on these poor victims of your arrogance?
do it for the children.... arm you countrymen now and bring your homicide rate down to U.S. levels
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beet.... so as long as a stupid, pointless law doesn't affect you personally, you have no problem with it, right?
Jeez, there's an attitude we've seen before. Martin Niemöller springs to mind.
There are lots of stupid, pointless laws. One more doesn't make any difference, even though I wouldn't take you for the kind of guy who frequented head shops before your country banned them in 1981.
10000/68 - nothing more to be said.
-quod erat demonstrandum, mi old china.
-
It's like beach erosion, Beet. Eventually it'll be your house that is underwater. Niemöller.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's like beach erosion, Beet. Eventually it'll be your house that is underwater. Niemöller.
Hardly. I'm well inland, some 60 miles from the nearest coast. I think my house might see me out. :D
I've heard that Niagra falls will cease to exist in its current form because of erosion, however...
-
I think beet just admitted that banning firearms is about as dumb and wrongheaded as banning headshops. I would agree.
more than half the burglaries in england committed while the house is occupied... enough said.
lazs
-
Let's see... weren't you the guy bemoaning the smoking ban in restaurants? Was that you?
What cha gonna do when they come for you? The cigarette ban/confiscaton can't be that far away. Especially considering the cost of health care.
Don't worry, nanny will get round to you eventually.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's see... weren't you the guy bemoaning the smoking ban in restaurants? Was that you?
No, it wasn't me. I don't smoke - bring it on.:aok
10000/68 QED
-
Ah, alcohol then. The data is more than clear; alcohol is a great social ill, costing huge amounts to treat not to mention corollary losses.
Nanny will take away your wine and liquor...for your own good, of course.
And those auto-deaths... you do realize they cost society millions, don't you? And you know riding a bicycle is so much more healthy and "green". Not to worry, son... nanny is here to save you.
Niemöller.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It made bugger all difference to me personally.
Isn't this always the case when freedoms are taken away, even rarely used freedoms. Since the change in the law doesn't effect the majority of people, they simply don't care. Moreover, they don't care that a small minority have lost something they valued.
That's why incrementalism is so insidious. It exploits the people's unwillingness to defend the rights and freedoms of small groups. Take away rights and freedoms in tiny increments and the masses won't notice or care. Gun ownership in Britain has never been widespread. Yet, there were gunowners who lost some personal freedom. However, because they were uneffected, the masses (Beet1e being one of them) couldn't care less.
Ben Franklin spoke well when he said, "Anyone who would trade a little of their freedom for a little security; deserves neither" (paraphrased).
A lazy democracy is the worst kind. During the two years I lived in Europe, I never saw anything that remotely approached the level of political activism that exists in the USA among the general population. Many Europeans see the political hullabalu in America as uncivilized mayhem. However, we like it that way. We thrive on the mayhem. Probably because we have a far more chaotic society and by nature and breeding, are a rebellious people.
After the end of WWII, German generals were interviewed to determine their opinion of the American soldiers they fought against. This was instituted to determine if changes in training and command structure were needed. When asked why he thought the American army was so adaptable to changing battlefield circumstances, German Field Marshal Kesselring replied: "The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis." Naturally, the American Army is nothing more than a reflection of the American people.
In the 1970s a Soviet officer made the following notation in his personal journal: "One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine."
Amen Comrade.....
We shall see what the future holds, but as it appears now, Britain has gained no increased security via their gun ban. But they have surrendered a bit of their freedom.
Despite his obvious derangement in his later years, as a young man Mao Tse Dung wrote: "All political power comes from the muzzle of a gun." He was right.
Can any European grasp what would happen if a US President issued an Executive Order to confiscate all privately owned firearms? Do they understand that his nation fought a civil war over issues less volatile than this? That is why incrementalism is the preferred method, because the left recognizes that any overt gun-grab attempt would be met with unimaginable violence that the government might not survive. If I were still in the military and was ordered to collect personal firearms, I would refuse. Under the UCMJ, I can refuse any illegal order. Moreover, I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC. That oath did not expire when I received my honorable discharge. The left understands that most police departments would refuse to enforce any such order. They also know that the military (rank and file) would resist as well.
We are a nation of sharp contrasts. We are a difficult people to understand. We are often self-righteous. We are impatient with dawdlers. We have zero tolerance for foreign interference in our domestic affairs. We are often ill-mannered and prone to being hotheaded. I believe that most Americans recognize these things. But we also have a low tolerance for being looked down upon by many younger Europeans who seem to forget that their current freedom was founded upon the power, treasure and blood of the unsophisticated Americans who never asked for anything in return but respect. During my most recent visit to Europe, I was shocked at how the current generation, who never watched the Nazis march thru their cities, who never fought for their national existance, how they displayed virtually no respect for the sacrifices made by their grandfathers and those of America and Britain in bringing freedom to their lands. It was stunning to listen to their idiotic and distorted view of history (you will find that Hitler is viewed by a growing number of students as being a misguided genius and that anti-semitism is florishing in universities). I think Europe needs to spend more time looking at itself rather than at America.
Yes, we certainly have our faults. However, we haven't forgotten how we got to where we are. American's clearly have a better understanding of the price of freedom and no small amount of us believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an integral part of our Constitution and would resist the loss of that freedom as violently as we would the loss of free speech.
*Nemo me impune lacesset......
I always thought the country should have adopted the Gadsden flag of the revolution. It was a gem..
(http://www.gadsden.info/i/clipart/Dont-Tread-300.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
*Translates to: No one will provoke me with impunity.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, alcohol then. The data is more than clear; alcohol is a great social ill, costing huge amounts to treat not to mention corollary losses.
Nanny will take away your wine and liquor...for your own good, of course.
Feel free to make it up as you go along! :D
No, wine is good for you. In fact they even serve red wine to heart patients at Addenbrooke's hospital near Cambridge. Two glasses a day has been shown to have a positive effect with regard to keeping blood vessels healthy.
They will never take away our liquor. They can't afford to. It raises too much in tax revenues for them to do that. Try again, Mr. Toad. :aok
10000/68
-
Originally posted by Widewing
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/rty6.jpg)
Nice flag - red cross on white background. Cool. :cool:
Interesting thread, but way off topic. The thread was about the gun situation in Britain. Indeed, the original post made no mention of America.
You say that there would be an almighty struggle if your peeps had their guns taken away. Here, we couldn't give a ph*k. In fact, tens of thousands of guns and hundreds of thousands of ammunition have been handed in voluntarily - in two amnesties in recent years.
Whereabouts in Europe did you live, WW?
That oath did not expire when I received my honorable discharge.
ewwww.... sounds like an abscess. :(
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Whereabouts in Europe did you live, WW?
Northeastern Italy. Pordenone, near Aviano.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In order to arm millions of law abiding CC holders, it follows that you are going to need huge chains of retail outlets selling guns, or mail order companies - whatever. Your big mistake was to think that only the law abiding would have guns. In creating thousands of outlets where guns can be purchased or otherwise procured, you created the biggest society of armed criminals on the planet.
Hogwash. What you have done is furnished the citizen an opportunity by which to defend themslves and their property from the criminals.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Hiya Jackal! Seems funny to be arguing with you, as you are one of my BBS pizza map allies!
Hmmm.... you start by saying and about 5 lines later you said So which is it?
.
LOL Which is what? You have shown both.
I`m not arguing with ya Beet, just pointing you towards the light so you an see a little clearer. :D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Hogwash. What you have done is furnished the citizen an opportunity by which to defend themslves and their property from the criminals.
Bollocks. It's only because the criminals are armed that you even need to consider arming yourselves. Nowhere else in the civilised world is this necessary.
-
So exactly why is the US disarming the Iraqi civilians if more guns = less crime.
-
thrila... the first thing you do when you want to take over the government of your country or a conquered one is to take away the guns from the people... it has nothing to do with crime.
beetle... if certain types of guns were banned here we would have tohousands turned in "voluntarily" too.... many are law abiding citizens and most amnesty programs are carrot or whip... if you turn em in by a certain time you are ok but after that you are an outlaw and even stiffer penalties are impossed.
booze... don't drink it and I reeally don't care if a few effite upperclass live a couple years longer by guzzling a couple of galsses of wine a day.... the benifiet of that is so far outweighed by the grief booze causes as to be laughably insignificant...
maybe spook should post some pictures of the carnage of drunken drivers and equipment operators and yes... even fiorearms owners so that "we all knew what we were talking about here" maybe spook should post what it costs in real medical bills and loss off productivity for us to "drink a few glasses of wine every day"
you can't defend booze on any level except that it is no ones bussiness but your own... a personal right... You can't say that it should be illegal because of it's "potential for harm" you can't quantify it's value as a freedom by it's cost in lives or dollars. It can be used to extend life or to destroy life... in many peoples hands... most peoples.... it is a ticking time bomb... most who drink have risked the lives of others at one time or another by driving drunk or doing dangerous things.... drinkers are most likely to hurt themselves or a family member and are a huge drain on the economy of a nation.
I don't drink anymore but was an alcholic for many years... I caused a lot of harm with my drinking... I seen what booze can do. If I never see another drunk I will not miss it one bit. If no one drank the world would be immensly better off.
I have no desire to ban booze.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Bollocks. It's only because the criminals are armed that you even need to consider arming yourselves. Nowhere else in the civilised world is this necessary.
LOL Here we go again. Yep the criminals are ARMED and will always be armed. You just refuse to recognize the fact that criminals are going to have guns and have outlets for guns no matter what. They don`t need this" gunshop on every corner" theory of yours. Legal gun dealers mean nothing to them.
-
criminals armed? but isn't that how this all started? criminals in england are..... uh.... armed... and citizens aren't
So what is englands solution? arm the police... yep... put more guns into the mix. It's the right solution of course but.... too little too late and too restrictive. So long as there isn't a cop car around the crooks got nothing to fear and can be the only armed person around.
spooky never explained to me why he should have a gun and not his fellow man.
fact is, most cops only spend a fraction of their time training with their guns and most are not very proficient with them... the average hobbiest who likes guns is more proficient.
and... even if you allowed unrestricted concealled carry... only about 10% of the population would take advantage of it.. the jews who have a huge terrorist threat on their streets and no restrictions have about this number... states with very few restrictions don't even aproach this number.
And how much of a problem are these armed citizens? why... none. way less than what would be expected from any group of people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
LOL Here we go again. Yep the criminals are ARMED and will always be armed. You just refuse to recognize the fact that criminals are going to have guns and have outlets for guns no matter what. They don`t need this" gunshop on every corner" theory of yours. Legal gun dealers mean nothing to them.
I don't fully agree.
Yes, gun homicides are not new to Britain, and have existed for many years.
But you're missing the essential truth, which is that although some guns find their way into criminal hands, we don't have thousands of gun homicides as in the US. Indeed, a government spokesperson said last week that two thirds of "gun" crimes were in fact carried out with replica weapons which were merely used to threaten. Why? Because they couldn't get hold of the real thing? Why not? Gun control would be my first guess.
So yes, there will be a relative few guns in criminal hands, but not millions - as would be the case with G4A/gunshop on every corner.
10000+ v. 68 is all the evidence I need to support my point of view.
Lazs, if you were a Jehovah's Witness and knocked on my door, I'd buy a copy of the Watchtower just to get rid of you. you can't defend booze on any level except that it is no ones bussiness but your own... a personal right... You can't say that it should be illegal because of it's "potential for harm" you can't quantify it's value as a freedom by it's cost in lives or dollars. It can be used to extend life or to destroy life... in many peoples hands... most peoples.... it is a ticking time bomb... most who drink have risked the lives of others at one time or another by driving drunk or doing dangerous things.... drinkers are most likely to hurt themselves or a family member and are a huge drain on the economy of a nation.
...and yet if someone paraphrased your argument against booze and used the same logic in an argument against guns, you wouldn't agree at all.
I have never hurt myself or a family member, and have never been a burden on the resources of any nation. What was it like being an alcoholic?
-
think you are missing my point beetle... I am not for banning booze. The fact that I have no use for it myself does not give me the right to take away your freedom even tho your "freedom' to drink is a catastrophe of enormous proportions...
feel free to use my arguements to keep the prohibitionsts at bay. They are no worse... much less worse... than the gun banning sissies to me.
meanwhile.... your crime continues to rise while here in the states..... 2003 fbi stats show a 3% drop in violent crime..... a continuing trend..
but cheer up... when you have a bunch of elite bobbies like spook running around with firearms your crime will stop growing.
and... Are you saying that I couldn't buy a gun in england if I didn't care about the legality of it? Sheesh... I never seen anything that was illegal that couldn't be bought.
lazs
-
oh... and your arguement that 68 vs 10,000.... not much of an arguement when 68 gun homicides is what? 1/3 of your population or so? (and shrinking)
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't fully agree.
Yes, gun homicides are not new to Britain, and have existed for many years.
we don't have thousands of gun homicides as in the US.
So yes, there will be a relative few guns in criminal hands, but not millions - as would be the case with G4A/gunshop on every corner.
And you are going to get more and more crime. It`s just a fact. You are slowly catching up with the rest of the world as discussed earlier.
Laws/bans are useless. They only effect the law abiding. Criminals are not interested in bans/laws with the exception that they make life easier for them.
Gun shops would only help. They arm the law abiding citizen. Criminals could give a hoot about gun stores. They don`t use them.
-
Jackal - have you ever been outside of the US? If not, this would explain why you consistently fail to grasp the point...
Originally posted by Jackal1
Laws/bans are useless. They only effect the law abiding. Criminals are not interested in bans/laws with the exception that they make life easier for them.
That would hold water IF there were lots of outlets/retail stores where guns could easily be bought. In Britain, there aren't any. Well, there are places where I could buy a shotgun, but I have never seen a shop that sells handguns with any power to speak of.
What you're failing to see is that not even the criminals find it easy to acquire a gun. Where would they go to buy one? Where would the supplier buy his stock?
Laws and bans are NOT useless, hence 10000/68.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Jackal - have you ever been outside of the US? If not, this would explain why you consistently fail to grasp the point...
That would hold water IF there were lots of outlets/retail stores where guns could easily be bought. In Britain, there aren't any. Well, there are places where I could buy a shotgun, but I have never seen a shop that sells handguns with any power to speak of.
What you're failing to see is that not even the criminals find it easy to acquire a gun. Where would they go to buy one? Where would the supplier buy his stock?
Laws and bans are NOT useless, hence 10000/68.
LOL Yea, I have been other places than U.S. on a few occasions. :D
We know about the no gun outlets that you keep stating Beet.
Do you honestly believe that if someone is planning a robbery or some other crime involving a gun that they run down to a gun store to get their tools.
Beet, I believe you must have led a very, very sheltered life if you think there is no outlet for guns or anything else illegal as far that goes.
As far as stock for a supplier...... You do have shipping, etc coming in and out of your country don`t you? :D
Got any idea just how easy it is to smuggle?
C`mon Beet, you really can`t believe the line of malarky you are putting out now can you?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
LOL Yea, I have been other places than U.S. on a few occasions. :D
We know about the no gun outlets that you keep stating Beet.
Do you honestly believe that if someone is planning a robbery or some other crime involving a gun that they run down to a gun store to get their tools.
Beet, I believe you must have led a very, very sheltered life if you think there is no outlet for guns or anything else illegal as far that goes.
As far as stock for a supplier...... You do have shipping, etc coming in and out of your country don`t you? :D
Got any idea just how easy it is to smuggle?
C`mon Beet, you really can`t believe the line of malarky you are putting out now can you?
No, I don't believe that if someone is planning a robbery here, that they would run down to the local gun store. And for two reasons: 1) There are very, very few gun stores. 2) The gun stores that do exist do not stock kit like .44 magnum, .45 semi auto etc. You might be able to buy a handgun which has a range of a few yards...
...which leaves smuggling. Well, some guns are smuggled because there are illicit guns present, and they sure weren't sold at gunshops - for the reasons I just gave. But if it's so easy to smuggle, and the point of sale of illicit guns is so obvious, law enforcement would be bound to know about it.
The fact remains that criminals are thwarted in their attempts to obtain guns in many cases, and end up using old, inaccurate "reactivated" replicas, or just simply replicas - that cannot be fired. Why would they do that? Because they can't obtain the real thing, that's why.
And as a testimonial to the fact that they can't obtain the real thing, our gun homicide tally has remained below 100 for many years. Otherwise it would be 3000+.
-
Jump up and down a bit. It might unstick that broken record. :D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Jump up and down a bit. It might unstick that broken record. :D
LOL :lol
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_128v.gif)
-
Beatle, your anti-gun rhetoric makes me so damn angry I could just shoot you!!:mad:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
LOL :lol
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
10000/68
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_128v.gif)
ROFL
Was a great thread Beet. Enjoyed it.
Gotta grab a shovel and bury Ole Paint.
We`ve rode this horse into the ground.
Cheers!
-
Sure thing, Jackal. I've enjoyed it too!
See you in the next gun thread.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_10_5.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
spooky never explained to me why he should have a gun and not his fellow man.
fact is, most cops only spend a fraction of their time training with their guns and most are not very proficient with them... the average hobbiest who likes guns is more proficient.
lazs
I did. You must have had your ear protection in again and I am very proficient with not only my personal firearm but many others. True there are many like you describe. I term them lazy. The opportunity exists at least here to be better if they desire. You can lead a horse to water but.....
Signing off also. Was fun while it lasted. S! to you all.
-
so... if a civilian was as well trained as a cop then you would be allright with him carrying concealed?
how many rounds do you fire a month and of what kind?
lazs
-
One of the reasons for retiring from this thread was because I know it was hurting Jackal, having to argue on the same side as Lazs. :lol
Ayup, Sp00k - we're back on again: New gun thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133705)
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/13/nbecc13.xml
The perpetrators of the crime which was the original subject of this thread have been jailed for life, with a recommendation that each should serve a minimum 32 years.
-
so the brits admit that the real way to have gun control is to jail the criminals for a very long time (better to execute em IMO)?
We agree on that... the problem is that the brits make criminals of ordinary good people who would use a gun for recreation or defense and give them longer terms than they do their burglars and muggers...
strange ideas..
lazs
-
Word must get through to the people that firearms are a bad idea. Who knows what they'll want next... To defend themselves, themselves; slippery slope!
-
worse... next they will be shooting the kings game animals!
lazs
-
Shooting the Kings game animals!!!! Off with thier heads!!!
Next thing, they wont even want to bow their heads by the side of the road when royalty passes by.
-
silly brits... melting their weapons down for dental prostectics has proven quite unsuccesful I take it?
-
Terrible that the Brits cannot get along even between neighborhoods. I thought they were civilized. What makes one neighborhood so hateful to another?
-
Crummy brit bedside manners.
-
The brits and western europe in general have learned that individual ownership of guns can be a very expensive. As such they have traded their individual ability to own a gun with the collective safety of the population.
Lots of folks in the states want to adopt the same system. Problem is theres a bunch of us that cherish our individual rights. Even at the expense of the larger system. Iindividual rights trump collective rights in the states. At least that appears to be the case. Several of the brits I know that immigrated to the states and have become americans made purchasing a firearm one of their priorities. Not because they feared getting crimed upon, but rather because they felt it was an important ability to have, the right to self defense. I gathered they did not like having that ability denied them in their old land.....
-
it has to be difficult, being subject to the whims of an old lady. I feel sorry for the poor britishers, the queen, hugh grant, elton john, a generation of aging rockers, bad teeth, driving on the wrong side of the road and being in America's shadow. things are tough for them guys. let's lighten up a bit.