Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on October 24, 2005, 04:49:44 AM
-
What the hell is a ball bearing gun? OK, maybe I can guess. That is apparently what was used in the Birmingham riots at the weekend. All I can say is thank Cod the perp could not lay his hands on something more serious than a ball bearing gun. We know what we have to thank for that. :aok
In the bad old days before *that*, 92 officers were shot in a five year period (1908-1912). These days it's much less frequent.
*It* works, but hey - no-one ever said it worked... perfectly.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
*It* works, but hey - no-one ever said it worked... perfectly.
It would if you outlawed ball bearings.
-
You have to go back to 1908 for a time before your gun ban in order to cite statistics of cops getting shot.... What gives?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It would if you outlawed ball bearings.
No, outlawing ball bearings would not do the trick. However, if we were to target the supply of ball bearings, we'd have an answer! However, ball bearings have other uses, unlike certain other types of hardware whose supply has been targeted, so we can't outlaw them. Same thing goes for cars.
Grun said You have to go back to 1908 for a time before your gun ban in order to cite statistics of cops getting shot.... What gives?
Because that's how long ago since cops were being shot on a weekly basis. Then, in 1920...
...and since then, I know of only two cops to have been shot and killed in the past 21 years. And one of those was shot by a bullet fired from a machine gun in the Libyan embassy.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... ball bearings have other uses...
Only when caged within an inner and outer race are the balls themselves useful. One could write a law forbidding the dismantling of caged rolling element bearings and the posession of dismantled bearings outside of the companies which assemble such caged rolling element bearings.
Yes. this is a good idea, and I think civilized societies everywhere should go for it. Now that the cat is out of the bag on the projectile uses of ball bearings the criminal element everywhere will begin to fashion ball bearing projectile weaponry unless it is agressively controlled.
-
The company that produces these bearings must be sued immediately. :)
-
"However, ball bearings have other uses, unlike certain other types of hardware whose supply has been targeted"
Did Beet1e insinuate that firearms have no use whatsoever except killing people? Yes, it's pretty clear he did. That's pretty outrageous, even for him.
You know better than that Beet....lying isn't like you.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by beet1e
However, ball bearings have other uses, unlike certain other types of hardware whose supply has been targeted, so we can't outlaw them. Same thing goes for cars.
English lad and his instructor shooting clay targets.
(http://www.crofter.com/images/dss01.jpg)
The Glorious Twelfth. A "driven day" (shooting birds chased by beaters from a stationary butt). Alvie Estate, in the Scottish Highlands.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1130156248_grouse2029.jpg)
Host and Laird Jamie Williamson holds a freshly shot grouse on the Glorious Twelfth. A "driven day" (shooting birds chased by beaters from a stationary butt). Alvie Estate, in the Scottish Highlands.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1130156211_grouse204.jpg)
What Beet means to say is that ball bearings have other uses that he personally finds necessary in his life, unlike certain other types of hardware that he doesn't personally find necessary in his life, go hifreann leat.
As long as you play his way, he'll be happy.
-
And here we have the typical gun owners in the UK hunting grouse from the safety of their foxhole. Because as well all know. Grouse are dangerous creatures and are prone to shoot back.;)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1130156248_grouse2029.jpg)
All I can say is.
If owning a gun in the UK means you have to dress like that.
Im glad I dont live in the UK.
that style of dress alone is enough to deter people from owning guns LMAO
-
Well, Dred, in a way you are exhibiting the same characteristics as Beet. It's not important to you so.........
I've attended one English driven shoot. I really hadn't expected to be asked along, I was there to pick up a dog. Fortunately, I had a varied enough wardrobe that I was able to scratch together some field clothes. I ended up adding my business suit tie at the last moment. I got a few rather different looks initially but at lunch, several came up to me and said something like. "Glad you dressed for this; shows respect for the sport and the game, doesn't it".
It's all in how you look at it. Their clothes are supremely suited and adapted for the type of hunting they do, just as our are suited and adapted for our type of hunting. Just as shooting driven grouse from a butt is as valid, logical and proper as walking up pheasant on an open prairie.
I'll tell you this; when I got home from that trip, I tossed out some of my older raggedy hunting gear. I tend to go with my old comfortable standby stuff until it's worn thin. After that trip, I decided to show a bit more respect for the sport and the game. I bought some new stuff and now I replace it when it gets shabby looking.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What the hell is a ball bearing gun? OK, maybe I can guess. That is apparently what was used in the Birmingham riots at the weekend. All I can say is thank Cod the perp could not lay his hands on something more serious than a ball bearing gun. We know what we have to thank for that. :aok
In the bad old days before *that*, 92 officers were shot in a five year period (1908-1912). These days it's much less frequent.
*It* works, but hey - no-one ever said it worked... perfectly.
IMO, a compressed air gun of sorts, almost like a piantball marker. Ban guns, society will improvise to find ways to kill each other. Maybe Cricket paddle catapults are next?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
IMO, a compressed air gun of sorts, almost like a piantball marker. Ban guns, society will improvise to find ways to kill each other. Maybe Cricket paddle catapults are next?
Karaya
K2 has a point, humans will always find ways to kill each other. You have to work on the cultural aspect, not the weapons that are available to the culture. But some brits just don't understand that.
-
ROFL! - I haven't lost my touch - 8 in the bag! ;)
"You know better than that Beet....lying isn't like you. " - J_A_B
Thanks, JAB! You've always been nicer than some of those other meanies. What I should have said is that no-one here in the UK needs a handgun. And indeed, we all get by without. As for shotguns like the ones shown in Toad's pics, I can have one if I want, but currently have no need. If that changes, I'll let you know!
Mr. T - thanks for posting those Alvie Estate pics. I was able to find their website, and it looks like an interesting place. I might have to go there myself. Their prices look OK. I'll even give the clay pigeon shooting a try! As you can see, Scotland is very beautiful - peaceful too, except places like Glasgow. I was there just last month - at Onick, from where we climbed Ben Nevis (4406ft). My cod, it nearly killed me. The heart & lungs were OK, but oh the legs! - took 3-4 days to recover.
Mash - oh *they* already have other means - sharp objects etc., but these methods are much less efficient, which is why many fewer people are killed, and is also the reason that police and military forces around the world tend to use guns rather than swords. :aok
-
The 8th AF is planning a raid on Schweinfurt's ball bearing plant. Hope it goes better this time.
-
Well, if you end up using ground vehicles, remember to fasten your seatbelt. I know it's easy for you to forget!
-
You don't need to not have guns to stay civil. Or do you? Symptomatic of the real problem, I think.
"Getting by without", that's typical... I'll say european, but it's too broad a brush, though it's the right color.
-
Originally posted by moot
You don't need to not have guns to stay civil. Or do you? Symptomatic of the real problem, I think.
"Getting by without", that's typical... I'll say european, but it's too broad a brush, though it's the right color.
Maybe not broad enough - add to the mix Asia, Australia - broad, multi-coloured brush
-
Originally posted by moot
"Getting by without", that's typical... I'll say european, but it's too broad a brush
-
I'd argue, but forget it... you're happy that way, ok.
Just don't expect everyone to accept that as the best way to live.
You're thinking "doing your best with what you've got", I meant "giving up 'certain rights' to conform to some unnecessary norm".
-
what don't you agree with?
-
That I should have to give up my right to execute my will without breaching into others' liberties because of some bad apples.
A certain abuse doesn't justify prohibition of general use.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL! - I haven't lost my touch - 8 in the bag! ;)
Interesting personality...you act as though your post is a troll, then you actually argue a point. :O
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/257_1130161759_kissmetoad.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, Dred, in a way you are exhibiting the same characteristics as Beet. It's not important to you so.........
LOL I was teasing and nothing more.
I saw that picture and a foxhole immediately came to mind.
I just winged the rest. No pun intended:)
-
curval... dead birds talk where you live?
lazs
-
LOL Curval :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... dead birds talk where you live?
lazs
No lazs...only the ones that are alive. Even those that are really quite ill.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Curval
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/257_1130161759_kissmetoad.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
bloody brits, killing helpless birds and calling it a "sport", it's no wonder your govt wont let you play with guns.
-
LOL Curval! I'm sure the birds died happy, knowing that Mr. Toad had worn a tie for the occasion. :lol
By the way, Moot - thousands of South Africans are giving up their gun rights voluntarily, and relocating to Britain. They're coming here in droves. But that's OK, they're hard working and, given the choice, most would vote Conservative.
-
He was shot with a bb gun? Did it leave a nasty welt?
I do like the fundamental argument that bb guns don't exist for any reason other than killing people.
-
If I lost all my rights I'd shoot a cop too.
-
I gotsa powaline pellet rifle and a powaline CO2 pistol, I be cappin foos right n lefts fo tryin to mess wit my street creds.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I do like the fundamental argument that bb guns don't exist for any reason other than killing people.
You're right. The criminals that can manage to lay their hands on a real/manly gun carry it with them just in case they pass a shooting range on the way to their next crime.
-
Everyone is missing the point, including Beetle.
It happened during a riot....I thought that cozy little island was more civilized than that.
The focus shouldn't be the gun, it should be the riot. And there are two ways to look at that.
1.) What was the fundemental reason for the riot, and want would cause such a well-behaved society to riot, and then after all of that fact finding...
2.) Riots should be banned.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You're right. The criminals that can manage to lay their hands on a real/manly gun carry it with them just in case they pass a shooting range on the way to their next crime.
I do like the way you take an obscure situation and try to make an even more obscure parrelel that makes absolutely no sense.
Someone is shot with a bb gun.
It's a good thing the person that did it didn't have access to a real gun.
1) How do you know they didn't?
2) How do you know someone else in the crowd didn't?
3) How many other more effective weapons are there than a bb gun (like.. oh... say a rock) weren't used either.
I've yet to see you even remotely make any kind of connection between these stories you tell and their actual relevance to gun control.
-
So south-africa sucks worse than britain and you mostly see rightwingers in those people. They also workd hard, which doesn't have anything to do with the right to own guns, nor that guns imply criminal use either; what are you saying?
-
BAN BIRDS!!!!!!
-
so are brits so stupid that they can't even make a firearm in their garage these days?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Stringer
1.) What was the fundemental reason for the riot, and want would cause such a well-behaved society to riot, and then after all of that fact finding...
They changed Tea time ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so are brits so stupid that they can't even make a firearm in their garage these days?
lazs
????
That is your definition of stupid?
That's a pretty stupid definition.
-
Sorry Beetle, but I have to say it:
Has banning guns had any measurable effect on the murder, crime, or accidental death rates in the UK?
After the gun ban, did the murder rate go down? How about overall crime rates?
:aok
-
Originally posted by Stringer
1.) What was the fundemental reason for the riot, and want would cause such a well-behaved society to riot, and then after all of that fact finding...
2.) Riots should be banned.
Well, there are certain parallels with the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles - The riots took place in the country's second largest city, and were racially motivated, and some people died. In this latest riot in Birmingham, 2-3 people died as compared with ~40 deaths and ~200 injuries in the LA 1992 riots.
MiniD - if the perpetrator had had a more powerful gun, why bother to fart around with a ball bearing gun? The penalty for gun possession is 5 years - whether it's a .357 magnum or whether it's an imitation gun. As we say in Britain - might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
Moot asked So south-africa sucks worse than britain and you mostly see rightwingers in those people. They also workd hard, which doesn't have anything to do with the right to own guns, nor that guns imply criminal use either; what are you saying?
I'm saying that given the choice between having gun rights and enjoying the freedom that Britain offers, most people choose the latter. South Africans are pouring into Britain, and not too many Brits are going to SA any more.
Nuke asked Has banning guns had any measurable effect on the murder, crime, or accidental death rates in the UK?
Yes it has, but I suspect by gun "ban" you're talking about the 1997 change in the law. But that was merely the latest in a long chain of firearms controls which began in 1903 with the Pistols Act, prior to which there was no control at all. I think I can see where you're going with your argument though, and it's flawed. You want to demonstrate that these laws made no difference. And that's a bit like saying that there's no need for me to lock my house when I go away because I've never been burgled, and therefore "locking the doors doesn't make a difference". And NUKE, you never have to say "sorry" to me - you're my friend!
-
Balled Bearing Gun = BB Gun = Air Rifle.
You can get some fairly high power air rifles these days, combined with heavier grain "hunting" pellets they can be quite lethal.
In NZ they are coming into question as airguns are "unlicensed" but the new high power jobbies are raising a few eyebrows. Someone got shot in the stomach with one recently and it had fairly high penetration.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What the hell is a ball bearing gun?
It's a BB gun.
(http://www.flicklives.com/Glossary/red_ryder/RedRyder.jpg)
Sadly, this one comes without the compass in the stock.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Balled Bearing Gun = BB Gun = Air Rifle.
You can get some fairly high power air rifles these days, combined with heavier grain "hunting" pellets they can be quite lethal.
In NZ they are coming into question as airguns are "unlicensed" but the new high power jobbies are raising a few eyebrows. Someone got shot in the stomach with one recently and it had fairly high penetration.
New regs are on the way. Among them is the requirment to be licenced to own the highest powered airguns.
-
Soon you'll have to be licensed to own a fork.
I'm saying that given the choice between having gun rights and enjoying the freedom that Britain offers, most people choose the latter. South Africans are pouring into Britain, and not too many Brits are going to SA any more.
If you had any clue as to why people are pouring out of South Africa, you would realize that the gun issue is minute and does not even matter compared to the other problems.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
It's a BB gun.
(http://www.flicklives.com/Glossary/red_ryder/RedRyder.jpg)
Sadly, this one comes without the compass in the stock.
ack-ack
Careful, you'll put an eye out with that! ;)
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Everyone is missing the point, including Beetle.
It happened during a riot....I thought that cozy little island was more civilized than that.
The focus shouldn't be the gun, it should be the riot. And there are two ways to look at that.
1.) What was the fundemental reason for the riot, and want would cause such a well-behaved society to riot, and then after all of that fact finding...
2.) Riots should be banned.
Actually, as long as two human beings inhabit Earth, there will be strife.
Karaya
-
So Curv and Beet, if you were going to meet Her Majesty the Queen you'd just wear some old jeans and a t-shirt, right?
-
The obvious solution to this problem would be to make British citizens get licenses before they can have riots. Also, before they can receive a "right to riot" license, they must go through a training course and demonstrate a real need for the license.
In addition, Parliment might want to consider passing a law which imposes a waiting period on the purchase of ball bearings....
-
and levy a "riot" tax.
ack-ack
-
Beet I see what you're saying, but what point are you making?
Is the parallel that the US doesn't have as much freedom as Britain, and that it'd be better moving from them despite giving up gun rights?
Tons of people uproot themselves from indonesia and pakistan or wherever, to go study in the US, and this despite the cultural discomforts that come with it... then again?
The way I see it, the US gives you the right to do what you want. Britain does the same, except it forbids certain wants that have been misused by a few.
A lot lose a little to the few, whereas in the US, a few civil people lose a lot to a few criminals, but could not lose at all if they'd have enough common sense to be safe rather than sorry.
It would make sense that a country forbid something that was misused by more than a few, but then it would also make sense to move out of said country.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you had any clue as to why people are pouring out of South Africa, you would realize that the gun issue is minute and does not even matter compared to the other problems.
That's exactly what I am saying. You have people on this board who cite the level of gun ownership rights as the yardstick of "freedom" - citizens' rights and all that, and in the same breath try to depict the Euros as "subjects" - when most of 'em don't know the difference anyway. You are quite correct - the issue of being able to own a gun is basically... a nonissue - when measured against other factors. The obvious solution to this problem would be to make British citizens get licenses before they can have riots. - SKJohn
I read that the reason for the riot had something to do with a girl who was here as an illegal alien, ie. not a British citizen, so your proposed legislation might need rethinking. So Curv and Beet, if you were going to meet Her Majesty the Queen you'd just wear some old jeans and a t-shirt, right? -Mr. Toad
I haven't owned a pair of jeans in well over 30 years. Jeans are so... ubiquitous. I would be wearing a tie, I am sure. But then again, that doesn't mean I'm planning to shoot her! :rofl Is the parallel that the US doesn't have as much freedom as Britain, and that it'd be better moving from them despite giving up gun rights? -Moot
No, it has nothing to do with the US. See my reply to lasersailor ^. I made the point that although people can legally own guns in South Africa, this "huge" "privilege" pales into insignificance against the backdrop of societal woes in that country and, because many of them have parents/grandparents who came from Europe, they automatically have legal right of entry to Britain. Given the choice between the right to own a gun and the right to live in Britain, many choose the latter. The US does not enter into this discussion.
-
Forget it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Soon you'll have to be licensed to own a fork.
Now there's a thought.
But it will depend on the muzzle energy of the fork. If it's greater than 34 joules the fork will be classed as a firearm and fall under the licensing system.
-
Hey Beet1e--
How do you feel about alcohol? Certainly alcohol kills more people than guns whether the gun shoots bullets or ball-bearings. I hate the stuff personally, much more than I hate anything that goes "bang".
I agree with you in that the gun issue is basically a nonissue when compared to the big picture. This is partly why I wonder about your interest in this particular issue--how does it affect you? Why is it one of the "major" issues you identify with (at least on the BBS)?
I'll admit that my hatred of alcohol stems both from two main factors. First, the fact that dad drank over a case of beer a day for longer than I've been alive. One of my early memories is dad buying an '83 Mercury Marquis specifically because the center console was the perfect size to hold his ever-open "POC" beer bottles. Second, I have to clean up entirely too many crashes that were caused by a drunk and I've buried some friends killed by it. Say what you want about guns, but alcohol is vastly more sinister than any gun.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Hey Beet1e--
How do you feel about alcohol? Certainly alcohol kills more people than guns whether the gun shoots bullets or ball-bearings.
ummm... no.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
ummm... no.
He's probably right... drunk driving and alcohol related diesease take an huge toll.
-
"ummm... no."
I'm not counting people involved in wars. In both my country and his, more people die as a result of alcohol-related incidents than gun-related incidents.
J_A_B
-
J_AB - ah, the old alcohol debate. Big difference. Some people do drink to excess, and some of those suffer health problems later on. None of which has anything to do with the rights and wrongs of guns. The people who die through alcohol abuse made their own choices. People who get shot by a gun (apart from suicides) generally did not choose to die that way, but had that decision made for them by a criminal.
-
"The people who die through alcohol abuse made their own choices. "
I would say that people killed by drunk drivers didn't get much of a choice--but that's another issue, for another thread. Thanks for the reply.
Again, is there a particular reason why you seem to take the gun issue to heart? Or is it just the nature of the BBS that brings it out?
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
I would say that people killed by drunk drivers didn't get much of a choice--but that's another issue, for another thread. Thanks for the reply.
Again, is there a particular reason why you seem to take the gun issue to heart? Or is it just the nature of the BBS that brings it out?
J_A_B
Well, using NRA-style logic, I could say that "alcohol is an inanimate substance. That sealed bottle of whisky in the supermarket bag on the back seat is not going to jump out of the bag, hit the driver on the head and take control of the car, and THEREFORE... alcohol is not the problem." - that NRA logic cracks me up! :lol
As for the gun issue, there are many gun threads on this board - most of them not started by me. When things develop in such a way that living in an armed society is somehow better than the alternative, citizens/subjects etc., well then I'm going to have something to say about it.
I'm just reading a book by Cynthia Lennon, first wife of the late John Lennon. As you may know, John's mother was killed when she was hit by a car being driven by a drunken off duty policeman. Nobody minded though - the cop was wearing a tie. :rofl
-
"When things develop in such a way that living in an armed society is somehow better than the alternative, citizens/subjects etc., well then I'm going to have something to say about it."
There needs to be a distinction between an "armed" society and a violent one.
Violence aside, whether an armed society is "better" depends on your own point of view. There are some advantages regardless. If I lived in your country, I doubt I ever would have had the opportunity to shoot food from my front porch. If I lived in your country, I probably never would have had the opportunity to help build a house from trees I helped cut down myself.
Of course, in an urban environment there are no animals to shoot and no trees to cut down anyway so both guns and chainsaws are useless. Hence why the laws which might make sense in New York or London wouldn't necessarily make sense where I live. I've never been to your country, so when you say guns are essentially useless there I'm inclined to believe it. However, they aren't useless in my neck of the woods.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Of course, in an urban environment there are no animals to shoot and no trees to cut down anyway so both guns and chainsaws are useless. Hence why the laws which might make sense in New York or London wouldn't necessarily make sense where I live. I've never been to your country, so when you say guns are essentially useless there I'm inclined to believe it. However, they aren't useless in my neck of the woods.
J_A_B
Some people think, because of my views, that I live in a city. I do not. I would describe where I live as semi-rural. Here's a GE pic. My town has about 7000 people, and much of the surrounding area is farmland. Within 12 miles of here, you can shoot pheasant - if you are so inclined.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/chezbeet.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Toad
So Curv and Beet, if you were going to meet Her Majesty the Queen you'd just wear some old jeans and a t-shirt, right?
Some do Toad:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/257_1130242619__40382165_queenbob_203.jpg)
But personally I'd dress for the occassion. The old penguin suit would be appropriate. The added benefit would be that it would be much easier to hide my 12 guage with more than just jeans and a t-shirt.
Of course, the Queen isn't quite as easy a target as birds...especially when she's "packing".
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/257_1123679102_londonfightsback.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well, using NRA-style logic, I could say that "alcohol is an inanimate substance. That sealed bottle of whisky in the supermarket bag on the back seat is not going to jump out of the bag, hit the driver on the head and take control of the car, and THEREFORE... alcohol is not the problem." - that NRA logic cracks me up! :lol
Alcohol isnt the problem. Its how the alohol is used that is the problem.
If you drink responcably then Alohol isnt an issue.
Just as with anything its the people that are the problem.
That Sealed bottle of whiskey isnt going to jump out of the bag,hit the driver in the head and take control of the car.
But the difference between alohol and guns is that alcohol is addictive.
Guns are not.
Which makes Alcohol far more dangerous then guns.
I'd be far more afraid of a drunken man without a gun then a sober man with one.
-
It's about respect. Respect for the activity itself, the tradition surrounding that activity, the people who share that activity and yes, the game itself.
It's on the order of the German tradition of Der letzte Biss.
I wouldn't expect Beet to show any respect though.
(BTW, the last I heard, getting a full English shooting outfit from a proper source would run about $2000+. Makes Cabela's seem like a bargain.)
-
beet... it's simple really... take two countries with about equal freedoms..
one is a tiny broke little island with a tax on tv and $6 a gallon gasoline and crappy weather.
The other is a large country with all sorts of weather and gasoline at a third that with a vibrant economy and lots of cheap goods to buy..
the former country also bans private citizens firearms ownership..
The latter has varied laws on firearms but it is easy enough to live in a part of the country where you can carry allmost any firearm around openly or concealed and allmost no part of the country bans you from having a gun in your house of business...
now... people from the island country come to the other country to live by the thousands but.... not the other way around.
something is not right with the idea that safety is everything.
-
lazs you have a very strange idea of what constitutes "broke" and what constitutes a vibrant econmy.
Here's the US debt clock:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
$8,009,571,925,529 right now and growing at an average rate of $1.62 BILLION PER DAY. Once the tally is in from Iraq and all the hurricanes I imagine that figure will jump.
But...if you get to shoot guns, have cheap gas and are fortunate enough to live in a region that has better weather than Britain all is well I suppose.
-
"But...if you get to shoot guns, have cheap gas and are fortunate enough to live in a region that has better weather than Britain all is well I suppose."
yep... I would agree. And... I can go to the mountains or the beach or desert or just about any type of weather or terrain in about a tank of cheap gas...
life is good.
I just can't figure how any sane MALE would thing that the absense of a freedom is a good thing.
oh well... guess that's why we kicked em out in the first place eh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
J The people who die through alcohol abuse made their own choices. .
Actually quite a few die because of alcohol abuse and made no choice about it. They are the ones killed by the actions of the one consuming the alcohol.
Kind of like those who are injured by people who cannot control their actions or impulses.
-
That's exactly what I am saying. You have people on this board who cite the level of gun ownership rights as the yardstick of "freedom" - citizens' rights and all that, and in the same breath try to depict the Euros as "subjects" - when most of 'em don't know the difference anyway. You are quite correct - the issue of being able to own a gun is basically... a nonissue - when measured against other factors.
No. NO NO NO!
Even owning guns does not sway the problems in South Africa. The option to not own a gun has no effect on the option to DIE, GET RAPED, GET CAR JACKED, AND GET AIDS. And those are not understatements.
They are not moving into the UK because it's better. Actually far from it.
They are moving into the UK because it's the easiest.
When your house is on fire, you get the **** out as soon as you can. You don't sit there debating which exit is best.
-
But surely owning a gun protects you from all of that?
-
There aren't enough bullets in South Africa to defend yourself from all the criminals.
-
Then buy more bullets and more guns from America...lots there. Problem solved. Thus is the logic of all of the gun nu....errrr gun enthusiasts on this BBS.
If not then I am terribly confused.:confused:
-
Seems right that the UK and Bermuda should ban alcohol. Maybe not a total ban.....there could be alcohol clubs that hold your alcohol for you. You would have to go to the club and be registered to drink it, and not be able to leave until you are 100 percent sober. :D
Why doesn't the same anti-gun logic apply to alcohol? Alcohol has no useful purpose and causes many times more deaths than guns ever have in the UK (or Burmuda :) )
So why no outcry to ban alcohol? Do the people killed by alcohol not matter? It doesn't make sense. Every single argument that is used to justify a gun ban applies to alcohol as well.
And yeah, I said "killed by alcohol" just as people say "killed by a gun". Actually a gun doesn't kill, the person using it does. Same with alcohol. Which is worse? Compair the stats and get back to me.
It seems hypocritical to say that alcohol shouldn't be banned, but guns should. At the very least, it's not even logical.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why doesn't the same anti-gun logic apply to alcohol?
Because crimminals do not tend to threaten people with lines like "Give me your money or I will force you to drink a 40 oz bottle of rum (which might be enough to kill you I guess)."
-
In my observations, alcohol contributes to violance overall. Especially domestic violance, and violance related to driving while drunk.
I suspect drinking kills more people in the US, and generates far more pain and suffering than any other single factor....
-
Originally posted by Curval
Because crimminals do not tend to threaten people with lines like "Give me your money or I will force you to drink a 40 oz bottle of rum (which might be enough to kill you I guess)."
True, criminals aren't going to use a bottle of rum to rob you. Instead, they just may plow their two-ton manned missle into your mini-van filled with you and your kids and kill everyone on board. Which is more acceptable? Which happens more often?
The logic used to ban guns was that guns are dangerous and kill people, right? That they have no legitimate purpose, correct?The purpose was to eliminate deaths, right? Or, what was the purpose of banning guns?
Seems like a better, more honest approach would be to just admit that alcohol does kill more people than guns, but that people don't feel as threatened by alcohol, so they can look past those thousands and thousands killed by it every year.
I see no reason why you wouldn't back a ban on alcohol. It would save thousands of innocent lives. If guns killed people and had no purpose, seems like an alcohol ban is in order based on the same reasoning.
-
No curval. Not everything can be solved by bullets you war mongerer.
The real problem is racial. And yet again I am saying on this board that I fear not explain the real problem because I don't want to get banned.
-
Ball-bearings dont kill people, PEOPLE kill people!
-
Associated Press October 24, 2005
RIO DE JANEIRO -- Brazilians soundly rejected a proposal to ban the sale of guns in a national referendum Sunday, striking down the bid to stem one of the world's highest firearm murder rates after a campaign that drew parallels to the U.S. gun control debate.
Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, but a staggering 25 percent more gun deaths at nearly 40,000 a year. While supporters argued that gun control was the best way to stanch the violence, opponents played on Brazilians' fears that the police can't protect them.
"I don't like people walking around armed on the street. But since all the bandits have guns, you need to have a gun at home," said taxi driver Mohammed Osei, who voted against the ban.
With more than 92 percent of the votes counted, 64 percent of Brazilians were opposed to the ban, while 36 percent backed it, said election officials, giving the `no' position an insurmountable lead.
-
Nuke, the purpose of banning guns is to reduce gun crime. End of story.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Nuke, the purpose of banning guns is to disarm the peasantry so government shenanigans can ensue. End of story.
Corrected
-
Originally posted by Curval
Nuke, the purpose of banning guns is to reduce gun crime. End of story.
The Women's Christian Temperance Union had a similar ideal.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Nuke, the purpose of banning guns is to reduce gun crime. End of story.
So why not ban alcohol to reduce crime? That would end all of the drunk driving murders and other related crimes. Think of all the crimes that could be prevented.
Heck, doesn't anyone care about the innocents? What about the poor soccor fans who get mauled by drunken rioters?
Seems like banning alcohol would be a good thing, since it would prevent a lot or crime and death, even more than have been prevented by the gun bans.
-
banning guns, seems more like a political placebo for treating the symptoms of a much larger social disease.
stop gun crime, give them all life, make them earn their keep as well.
alcohol...if there ever was a king of all gateway drugs with political clout...
ball bearings... the snipers choice when it comes to wrist rockets and pesky neighbourhood cats.
-
Guns are too much temptation and should be banned as beetle & co say.
Hands should also be forbidden since their uses include beating and braking bones.
Alas, alcohol will also be banned since, gourmet dining notwithstanding, it is not necessary for a normal, healthy, civil life.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"ummm... no."
I'm not counting people involved in wars. In both my country and his, more people die as a result of alcohol-related incidents than gun-related incidents.
J_A_B
bingo! Next time put the "T & C"s on such broad sweeping statements ;)
-
Damn it man, just ban these now!
(http://www.valentinedistribution.co.uk/matrix_photos/Mitre%20Opener%20Bat.JPG)
Karaya
-
90 replies and the same old false analogies and parroting of sound bites. :)
The alcohol analogy is silly. The real problem is that the US has a murder rate of almost 4 times that of the UK. Americans just kill each other more. Does having easier access to handguns make it more efficient? I don't know. I would say that the US has done a poor job of keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals - and has paid the price for it.
More Americans have died from bullets since Ronald Reagan was president than all the Americans who died in all the wars the US has fought since, and including, the Revolutionary War. That's a pretty important statistic. Does that mean that all those who fought to 'maintain our way of life' died so Americans could continue killing each other?
Hunting game and birds is not the same as hunting people to mug. Target shooting is not the same as holding up a liquor store. Generally, the UK chooses to restrict handguns and the US chooses not to. Each constituency has the power to change that since both are democracies. It would take a formidable political will and organization to affect change, but it can be done by either.
If the UK chooses such limits, it's their business. If the US chooses not to, it's their business also. The UK has a high buglary rate and Brits have no right to sit upon a pillar to preach, and by the same token, Americans have little to sing about when it comes to safe streets. Maybe you all should just stop telling each other what to do because it's a waste of time and energy.
I think I should take my own advice. CYA! :)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The alcohol analogy is silly.
No it's not. The point is that people are the one's killing other people, not guns or alcohol.
How many people have died of/due to alcohol since the revolutionary war? That would be an "important" stat too.
-
No one's telling anyone what to do, and if they would, it'd take another's consent for coercion to really be happening, and even then, it's not the first person that acts, but the second. No harm no foul? No harm in arguing what's true.
Some posters probably think it matters more who's right and who's wrong, rather than what's true.
If one country's people kill each other more than another's, it's independent of whether allowing guns to the public being inherently right is true or not.
-
More Americans have died from bullets since Ronald Reagan was president than all the Americans who died in all the wars the US has fought since, and including, the Revolutionary War. That's a pretty important statistic.
=====
CRIKEY!!!!!
Just off the top of my head thats about 1.2 million....appx (just ruffing it....600k in civil war at least 450k in WW1 and WW2...and all those other little nasty wars no one remembers........nam 60k...Korea 50k)
We have had 1.2 million murders by gun since 1980? someone spank this guy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No it's not. The point is that people are the one's killing other people, not guns or alcohol.
How many people have died of/due to alcohol since the revolutionary war? That would be an "important" stat too.
It is : alcohol confuse people's brain, usually weapon don't.
-
Originally posted by straffo
It is : alcohol confuse people's brain, usually weapon don't.
Discounting head shots
-
The number of battle deaths in all US wars is about 650,000, Yeager.
-
I must apologise for an unannounced extended period of toodle-pippage. Thanks curval,rolex et al for holding the fort while I was gone! :aok
Alcohol isnt the problem. Its how the alohol is used that is the problem. If you drink responcably then Alohol isnt an issue. Just as with anything its the people that are the problem.
Notwithstanding a few typo errors, I agree entirely. And the same thing applies to guns. The danger is not the guns themselves. The danger is not the stupid or drunken people. The danger is stupid or drunken people with guns. The problem is, we cannot legislate stupid people, drunks or criminals out of existence. So what to do? We did the next best thing.
NUKE, you really should have read my earlier post before starting the anti alcohol crusade. I said ah, the old alcohol debate. Big difference. Some people do drink to excess, and some of those suffer health problems later on. None of which has anything to do with the rights and wrongs of guns. The people who die through alcohol abuse made their own choices. People who get shot by a gun (apart from suicides) generally did not choose to die that way, but had that decision made for them by a criminal. I wouldn't expect Beet to show any respect though.- Mr. Toad
Oh! Miiiiiaaaaooowwwch! That hurt! I hope you were wearing a tie when you typed that! :rofl
"one is a tiny broke little island with a tax on tv and $6 a gallon gasoline and crappy weather". - Lazs
The UK is made up of many separate land masses, ie. not just a single island. In total, it's about the size of Oregon, America's tenth largest state. The economy is the fourth largest in the world, after America, Germany and Japan (not sure of the order of the 2nd & 3rd). The "tax on tv" that you refer to is a licensing fee which goes to the BBC so that they can produce quality programmes, many of which are imported by America to be shown on American TV. The status quo here is highly preferable to US network "free" TV, which bombards the viewer with commercials at every opportunity. I always remember a movie being broadcast by a tv station in Sacramento, in which 8-minute segments of the movie were interspersed with 5-minute commercial breaks, making in impossible to concentrate on the movie. Thought it was worth mentioning, as Sacramento is only 21 miles from Dixon. :lol
You're right about the price of gasoline and the crappy weather. now... people from the island country come to the other country to live by the thousands but.... not the other way around.
I've lived in the US myself as you know, and know other Brits who have done the same, some of whom are still there. But what's your point? Are you saying that people are attracted there because they can then have guns? Two of my English friends living in the US have resident alien "green cards" and are entitled to buy guns. Neither has chosen to do that. I refer you to South Africa, where people are giving up gun rights in order to come to Britain. And, to paraphrase what you said earlier, people from South Africa come to Britain to live by the thousands but.... not the other way around. And... I can go to the mountains or the beach or desert or just about any type of weather or terrain in about a tank of cheap gas...
You got me there. I can get to the mountains of Scotland on a tank of diesel and to Bournemouth beach on ¼ tank of diesel, but alas there is no desert in the UK. The nearest desert area is possibly Spain/Italy - I'd need two tanks of diesel (and a 35 minute train ride) to get there. And... before you say "that's not desert", let me remind you that the location shots for the "spaghetti westerns" starring your fellow Californian, Clint Eastwood, were filmed in Spain and Italy.
I don't get it, Lazs. One minute you're bragging about how BIG your country is, and in the same thread you then brag about how SMALL it is - that everything is no more than a tank of gas away. What's that in your car - about 90 miles? :rofl Even owning guns does not sway the problems in South Africa. The option to not own a gun has no effect on the option to DIE, GET RAPED, GET CAR JACKED, AND GET AIDS. And those are not understatements. They are not moving into the UK because it's better. Actually far from it. They are moving into the UK because it's the easiest. - lasersailor184
How many South Africans do you know? How many have you met? I meet many. You're not wrong about the problems in South Africa. But given the choice of staying there and being able to "enjoy" gun ownership versus coming here, most choose to give up their gun rights to come here. Apparently they feel they might have a better life here. I'm surprised you disagree. In many cases that I know of, they give up quite a lavish lifestyle to come here. I've known people from that region who had houses on three acre plots, pavilions, swimming pools, servants who sold up to come here and live in a much smaller house - because their currency had devalued to such an extent. One guy I worked with couldn't even afford to remain in the south of England, and had to move up north to get an affordable house. Apparently, the gun ownership rights he had in South Africa did not..... 1)make him want to stay in South Africa; 2)convince him that he'd be "safe" if he bought a gun.
Rolex - interesting stats about those deaths. And I read this morning that US fatalities in Iraq have passed the 2000 mark. :(
-
Originally posted by Curval -
Nuke, the purpose of banning guns is to disarm the peasantry so government shenanigans can ensue. End of story.
First of all I have been accusued of being a peasant many times by lazs and now yourself. Ironically I have also been accused of being an elitiest by lazs also...you know, part of the gentry and all.
Which is it? Can you guys PLEASE get some consistancy in your arguments.
The only shenanigans that were halted by a ban of guns here was gun crimes. Since the ban I know of one death by shooting. The ban resulted from the shooting deaths of two people in a grocery store robbery and for the gunning down of the Governor, his aide de camp and "G"'s dog (by the same perps that did the robbery killings).
Do the math yourself. The ban HERE worked.
-
I guess the next thing that needs to be done then is ban machetes.
-
Recently a ban WAS imposed on the "unlawful carrying of machetes in public without a valid reason".
The machetes themselves were not banned as they are a tool used in landscaping businesses and also for private citizens to use on their own garden/yards. But, due to a number of gang related attacks using them the carrying of the machetes in public "without a valid reason" has been curtailed.
-
so curval... you feel safer with all these things banned? even tho you only had one shooting in what.... every couple of decades?
I got to ask... say the "gang" members obey the gun and machete and hammer and bat and everything else ban.... say they decide to obey all these laws (but somehow are still criminals in every other sense)... say they aren't armed...
could you defend yourself against 3 or 4 of em with them only using their hands and feet? What if.... what if one of these guys was breaking the law and actually had a machete?
Gun laws and such are great so long as everyone is playing nice and there is no need for killing or survival or... you just don't mind a survival of the strongest type of life style like in england.
If I was left helpless in defending my family even once because of some law that allowed criminals to have power over me.... then there would be no mans law on earth that would keep me from arming myself so that it didn't happen again..
the difference is... I allready know it can happen... and you seem to not. watch the news... watch the aftermath of a hurricane or earthquake or.... soccer or basketball game.... the civilized veneer of the criminal and the checks and balances.... the "rules" you impose go away quickly in those situations.. In those situations... the law won't help you or your family... only your armed determination will.
I think those who would disarm themselves for some false and fleeting security are cowards and are letting down their family and friends. I do know however that they will probly get away with it... the chances are fairly good that they may never need to defend themselves or others.
just like wearing seatbelts (you will probly never need em) it is wise to realize that the possibility exists.
To disarm yourself is the same as saying that you don't care what happens to you or the people around you... that you looked at the odds and you think that you will luck out.
lazs
-
Would the re-legalisation of guns prevent more crime or cause more it if it were to be enacted today?
I think it would cause it.
Would there be any accidental deaths from mishandling or shootings that missed their intended targets? The law of averages says it likely would. There has not been ONE incident of this since 1971. I do care about what happens to innocents around me.
But lazs...despite all of this you are using the home protection argument today. I thought you were more "I have the right to have fun and shoot trash" kinda guy. Your arguments vacillate between those two so often.
-
not at all curval... I enjoy all aspects of firearms. I keep my kimber on the nightstand... it is by my coffee maker as I type... I don't do this in case of a trash.... Oh wait... you are right... I do only care about shooting trash... and zombies of course.
When have I ever said that I only have firearms to shoot at trash?
More crime less crime? no crime is important save that which comes to me. Is a 4% rise in crime or homicides worth me disarming myself? would a 4% decrease make you buy a gun?
Not to a rational person... the decision is much like the seatbelt thing... a four percent or 1 in 100000 rise or fall in the people saved or killed by em isn't what makes you wear one.
but.. even so... the seatbelt is just a pain... no other use except to ruin your clothes or give you a rash...
As you pointed out... I can enjoy my firearms even when I am not shooting bad guys or zombies.
lazs