Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Octavius on November 03, 2002, 11:30:27 PM
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov02/93044.asp?source=tmj4
This whole weekend in Madtown can be summed up in one word: insanity.
Up and down State street (main drag in Madison) there were broken windows and other crap. In the morning it looked like a warzone! My friends and I saw the police in riot gear and the fire that was made in the street. We decided to get the hell out of there as soon as we heard the tear gas explosions. 65,000 people est. was about right... they were dancing ontop of bus stops, climbing light poles, kicking windows... all round pandamonium.
(http://www.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/nov02/madabig110302.jpg)
craziness
-
But I thought having all those Guns negated that sort of violent behaviour?
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
But I thought having all those Guns negated that sort of violent behaviour?
:rolleyes:
-
Apples and oranges, Spook. Obviously none of the partiers were armed, none of the shop owners were armed or even present. Should they have been there defending their shop by waving a gun around, the police would have dealt with THEM instead.
The events that took place were done mostly by out of towners and not UW Madison students. Like the article said, some of them came from as far as New York and Indiana just to party here. It was an unfortunate incident. Why not ban bars? Sound good Spook? Ahh, hell, go further and ban alcohol.. oh wait, been there done that.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
But I thought having all those Guns negated that sort of violent behaviour?
Strange how you bring this up when not a single shot was fired.
Also.. you may want to read the article.
Pretty boring event... not quite on par with most soccer parties.
AKDejaVu
-
A good reason to do away with Halloween. Just another excuse to go on a riot.
Les
-
Clearly bottles and bricks need to be outlawed.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Also.. you may want to read the article.
AKDejaVu
You're presuming he can read.
SOB
-
But dont the shop keepers have a right to protect their property?
Those kids attacking Government or State Police Officers. Dont they have that right under the Constitution to raise merry hell against the Administrational led Authoritarion figureheads who infringe upon their civil freedoms? Why werent they armed with more than a beer bottle. Why not a heavier calibre?
The owners of those $30-40,000.00 cars they were jumping all over. Dont they have a right to protect their property? Were innocents caught up in the violence and mayhem? Dont you have a constitutional right to BLOW them away?
What good are those handguns, the Belt fed Machine Guns and the UZI's if you cant protect your Constitional right to preserve life and property dammit!!!!
A MAN would have utilised the services of his personal Armoury and planted S-Mines and Claymores alongside every bin. One kick and you make his day.
Perhaps tho, you are correct. I have obviously exagerated a perfectly normal celebratory event. With civil riots on a steady decline since the days of Malcolm X and Robert King, I should take better note of the peace and tranquility that the cold blue steel of a S&W .38 brings to the citizens of Madison.
-
That's not a .38. That's a .25.
Les
-
yep, they have the right to own guns to protect their property. looks like the chose not to use them. the key is choice. just because someone ownes a gun doesn't mean they are gonna do a john wayne style shoot out anytime some kids get out of hand. I bet many of the victims of this riot did own guns but decided that these kids where so out of control that if they confronted them they would have to end up killing at least one of them and that their property wasn't worth taking a life.
I guess people can have the right to own guns and still have good judgement.
btw- as far as giving up guns. why the hell would anyone trust a gov't to have guns, if that gov't doesn't trust you to have guns?
-
I know Bama. I just grabbed the first thing I could find for dramatic effect :) It saves on Exclaimation marks :p
-
We have a similar street party thing here for Halloween, but when the crowds started getting big in the late 1980s, the organizers got smart and started charging admission. They put up temporary fencing for security and crowd control, and then had extra security personnel at the major checkpoints. The admission charge helped keep the "undesirables" out, and what economics couldn't accomplish big men with clubs and handcuffs could.
-
spook... can't even find pictures of guns in your country anymore? LOL. in real riots... those with guns don't get beat to death or have their property looted... ask some Korean storeowners in L.A. I don't think you know a .25 from a .38 anyway.
lazs
-
Hollywood Halloween party had 400 thousand show and no problems.... buncha Midwestern morals ruined those kids obviously!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hollywood Halloween party had 400 thousand show and no problems.... buncha Midwestern morals ruined those kids obviously!
Actually, the very liberal colleges nearby may be a source...you reap what you sow.. Wisconsin is primarily a Democratic state.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Pretty boring event... not quite on par with most soccer parties.
As much as it pains me to admit this...I agree with AKDejaVu on this one.
-
Yeah, I can understand that kinda reaction of the Badgers had beaten the Hawkeyes on sunday.
Seriously, this ain't a riot like something you'd get in LA; or even a political demonstration gone awry. This is what happens when you concentrate a large number of 18-22 year old males in a very small area and get them really really stinking drunk. Note the problems started about 1:30 AM -- or right about when the crowds leave the bars and head for the streets.
For an eye-opener, go to a big university town on a Friday or Saturday night when there's a home football game. Find the "heart" of the downtown/bar district and watch what happens there between 1:30 and 2:30 AM. Oh, and you *might* want to pack heat.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, the very liberal colleges nearby may be a source...you reap what you sow.. Wisconsin is primarily a Democratic state.
Yeah Rip, probably more liberal than Hollywood. I'm sorry, I thought Hollywood was the epicenter off all things evil and leftist.
-Sikboy
-
Well, thats another hot spot, Sik. Just take a look at that Gore/Bush map...move your family if you care about them to any part of that map that RED, avoid the blue!
-
Some revelers climbed trees, and a few women on balconies of second-floor apartments along State St. exposed their breasts while egged on by the crowd, witnesses said.
OH THE HUMANITY!
What I really want to know from the aleged witnesses: Were they perky?
-
perky as in "Mystery Alaska" ? :)
-
Spook,
I used to think you had your head on straight. After seeing a few of your later posts I have serious doubts. Do you use a firearm at work or do you follow your convictions and go about the streets unarmed? Since when does punishing the many for the transgressions of the few become justified?
-
bomb iraq, maverick!
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Spook,
I used to think you had your head on straight. After seeing a few of your later posts I have serious doubts. Do you use a firearm at work or do you follow your convictions and go about the streets unarmed? Since when does punishing the many for the transgressions of the few become justified?
Mav, I use a Glock 19 amongst many things at my disposal. In 15 years, Ive pulled it (to use it) more than once in that time.(dispatching animals excluded. ). Ive fortunately never shot anyone with it.
Laz, Toad and the boys in the majority here, simply have no idea and do not know. Neither do I want any of them to know either. The closest most of these people have come to an aggressor in their sights is a Buck in the woods whose only defence was to stare at them with big brown watery eyes down the length of their scope before they killed the mighty beast that once inspired admiration and awe and now inspires flys. I expect their responses.
As an ex-Police Officer yourself with many years experience, I find it hard to imagine you supporting the every gun to a household arguement. You know what its like going to a domestic where the seemingly quiet man who's lived in the street for the last 20 years suddenly learns his wife is bouncing the next door neighbour and running off with the kids. You know what their like when they got a gut full of grog and all common sense has left them. When they threaten you with death by Cop or Murder/Suicide, kids and all. These people are not unusual.
The Circumstances that rationalise the mentality of seemingly normal people to use firearms are many and varied. The ability for these weapons to fall into the wrong hands is a serious possiblility in the States.
We know it happens. We know that it isnt going to be Laz or Toad or anyone else here going to get these weapons off them. Its going to be me and you. Not sure about you, but im not crazy about that aspect of the profession :)
Shooting a teenager to dumb or whacked to listen and respond. Shooting a family man, who's only crime is his inability to deal with the emotional problems in his life. Shooting the quiet citizen who lives in a world of pain that doctors cant heal and he hasnt got the guts to go off to a quiet corner of the planet and take himself out. Im not talking about Criminals here. We're talking about those people who live next door to us. Who you see in this thread, who fly the sim around you. Everyday, normal happy joes. Normal people in abnormal situations.
Thats my beef about firearms in their house. Most gun owners are responsible. The bolts away from the longarm. The Ammo away in another place again. Everythings, ship shape and secure.
So how the hell are they going to defend themselves when the world turns to sh*t at their doorstep ? Its not. But the loaded handgun in the desk drawer will, wont it.
That quiet afternoon at the pub that goes berserk upon coming home to a missus with a broomstick in her hand may just be enough of a catalyst to start the chain of events that lead to them death of him or her by your their hands or yours and mine.
I like weapons. I like firearms. I'm a previous gun owner. Ive been around them the majority of my life, at home, in the military and on the Force. I know them well. I also know human nature as you do. I know that the gun isnt going to leap up and shoot me less I play with it. So im not blaming the guns. Just the people.
Thats why I dont want them in my neighbours house or in mine. People do NOT have safety catches. They do NOT unload an clear.
A very good friend of mine and work collegue, shot and killed a mentally ill man not more than 18 months ago. It would have been me, only I was several streets away searching for him.
For those who have no idea what its like to kill someone, and im not talking Military types as theirs is a different environment, with different circumstances all together with a different pain or motivation. It is not simply a case of pulling the trigger, filling out the forms and going to work the next day.
My mate has never worked a day on the road since. He was subject to ridicule in the courts, media and on the street with his family. Tho he was right in every aspect to shoot. He saved the life of another friend of mine and he did so only after his options were exhausted and his friend and he had copped a good beating. I would have pulled the trigger im sure. He was exhonerated after a lengthy exhausting process that took its toll on him and his family. Why should he or I go through all that bu**sh*t unnecessarily so you can have a firearm in your house that
a) if its held responsibly you will never get the chance to use it.
b) If its held irresponsibly, what the hell are you doing with it in the house or
c) that you have no intention whatsoever of taking to a gun club past present or future and will never see the woods past the vegtable patch in your backyard?
Laz. Heres a piccy of me playing with things I do not know. Its obvious to everyone here that I did screw up by putting a .25 pic where I should have put a .38. My mistake. Heres a real S&W .38. :p
-
Just gotta love that toejam eating grin Spook. Cracks me up every time. :D
Good serious post too. (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stant.family/Aceshigh/salute.gif)
Gatso
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, the very liberal colleges nearby may be a source...you reap what you sow.. Wisconsin is primarily a Democratic state.
i know it makes me embarresed sometime to be from this state :(
chk this out to see the democrates in action here......
http://www.jsonline.com/news/State/oct02/90228.asp
+ dont forget about Chuck Chvala our beloved senator being charged with 20 some felonies!!!!
-
Wow spook.. nothing better than reading someone post a "I know what I'm doing with a gun but nobody else does" rant. I like the way you make assumptions and presumptions. Its rather funny.
Just two questions.. why do you need a gun? And why do you "pose" with them?
AKDejaVu
-
LOL nice hat Spook ( I thought all Queenslanders wore Akubras) :D
...and don't let Johnny Howard see you with that thing
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Wow spook.. nothing better than reading someone post a "I know what I'm doing with a gun but nobody else does" rant. I like the way you make assumptions and presumptions. Its rather funny.
Just two questions.. why do you need a gun? And why do you "pose" with them?
AKDejaVu
Firstly, no where do you read in my posts where I say anything remotely similar to your statement.
Secondly, the first of your questions is so blatantly obvious that I need not truly reply. The 2nd question is as I have stated in the many posts you did not read including the one you responded to in this thread. I like guns. What I dont like, is them being in the hands of every Tom Dick and Harry around me.
Before you ask another I shall answer it for you.
What makes me a responsible Gun Owner that I can have one and others cant? Nothing. I am every bit as capable of going "Troppo" as anyone else. My son is every bit as capable as any other kid at assembling and playing with a gun and my house is as secure as any other to fail in its attempt at stopping others from stealing my guns.
Thats why I handed all my weapons in. (Minus that which I use occupationally.)
Thanks Tronski. Im legal and safe from Little John :)
-
The La7, WW2Online, BMW's and their personal favorite by far...Politics
You might wanna add Guns to that mate....
But I thought having all those Guns negated that sort of violent behaviour?
Don't think I've seen someone take the piss better on this BBS :)
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Firstly, no where do you read in my posts where I say anything remotely similar to your statement.
What I dont like, is them being in the hands of every Tom Dick and Harry around me.
Ya.. once again...
Like I said...
I know you're a cop... why do you need a gun in a country that has banned them? What purpose does it serve and why do you carry it?
And... "liking guns" is not an answer... do you think that gun with that pose made you look cool? I have a pic just like it of me with a galil. I don't post it because I think it was somewhat silly. Can't say I'm real proud of the time I posed with a good looking gun thinking it meant anything. I can say I was about 15 years younger when I did it.
I've read your posts spook. All of them. What they translate too is "I don't trust anyone else with a gun, but I'm OK with one". Maybe you are... maybe you aren't. Not using one does not necessarily demonstrate that... its when you do chose to use it that does.
And yes... I have pointed a gun at people too and not fired... in situations where it would have been deemed acceptable. And I don't necessarily agree with much of the pro nor con rhetoric being thrown around. But I don't agree with the "I'm trained and they're not so they shouldn't have one" line either. I've met many people that were trained at the use of firearms that I wouldn't trust with them... and many that weren't trained that I would. One thing that everyone of those people have in common is that I've met them... and I knew them.
What is written on this bbs is not what should be used to form value judgements of ones capacity nor judgement with a firearm. rhetoric... like most everything else posted here.
gotta love the age old debates... you can just cut and paste from old posts or reword the exact same thing over and over.
AKDejaVu
-
LOL get outta my thread! shoo! all of ya... :D
Take it somewhere else. I dont want to be held responsible for inciting a riot on the internet ;) :eek:
-
On topic:
as one of the state street retailers noted: all you need against drunken callege kids with no particular political program is a baseball bat.
Gun control has nothing to do with this either way.
Liberal/Conservative policies have nothing to do with it either. If you look at LIttle Lord Fauntleroy there, odds are he's a republican-voting fratboy. Five years from now, he may be a pacifist green-party homosexual. The political alliance of drunken college kids is first with alcohol, second with being a spoiled brat (if I'm drunk, it doesn't matter what I do). Neither of those have party alliances. period.
-
"What I dont like, is them being in the hands of every Tom Dick and Harry around me. "
That is kinda hypocritical, if you have a gun, why not the next guy? I don't have one because my greatest fear is the kids finding it and shooting themselves. But I have seriously thought of a bow & arrow. The kids are to small to pull back the bow, and it beats no defence at all.
-
Good grief. Some of you guys are all bent out of shape at the hideous thought from another that gun ownership doesnt make the man.
Any idiot can own a gun. Deja. This country still has more than its fair share. As I have stated previously. The Gun Buy Back scheme did not wipe them off the face of the map. Plenty are still out there. Gun Buy Back was about reduction. It succeeded in that.
Only tonight, I attended an Armed Robbery with a longarm involved. A minute maybe less from confrontation with an Armed Offender. Thats why I carry a gun. Thats why I oppose those not required to do so from carrying them.
For entertainments sake, lets indulge ourselves and pretend your statements are one of genuine rational thought.
Does the pic make me Cool. HELL YEAH! Coolest muther in the valley. LOL. What do you think? The pic was taking the piss out of Laz and the comments regarding .25's vs .38's. Please pay attention and absorb the humourous side to an already tiring thread. No. Having my mug up on the big screen with my phallic symbolising machine gun doesnt crack my jollies. The point wasnt to show you how incredibly handsome and undoubtably attractive I am, but to make a visual joke. It appears that at least 1 of us, didnt get it. Having said that, I am a good looking Rooster eh?
P.S. Id like to see your pic with a Galil. I'll raise you one with an M60, Lee Enfield 303, H&K semi auto, M16, SLR and various pistols. The point wasn't about who has the biggest gun Mr Eastwood. It was humour. Again. Sadly lacking in some quarters.
But I don't agree with the "I'm trained and they're not so they shouldn't have one" line either.
Once again, your drawing lines like bingo balls from the ultra melon machine. I didn't say or imply that either. Tho I like the creative input you place into my sentances for me. It does make them more interesting to read.
Nowhere have I made comments about who is trained and who is not. Any deadsh*t can train on firearms. We see them at Gun Ranges, in the military and on the Police Force every single day.
My arguement is not about training vs the untrained. None of my posts utilise training in any way shape or form as a pro or a con to the debate.
Please read all the words....
My arguement is normal people in abnormal situations using a firearm that they otherwise would not employ. The 2nd stage of my arguement is that if the weapons they hold more dear than their mothers is properly kept, it will be absolutely bloody useless to them in a defensive situation, hence their entire arguement is baseless.
Why do I carry a gun on duty?
Well cause some of the bad men would like to hurt, kill and maim me is why. They may not have a gun either. They may bring a crowbar, a knife, a dirty sock and comic book. It doesnt matter to me. I want to go home to my family at night just as much as you do.
Remember that that gun doesnt only protect me. It protects the likes of you, your family and others.
Unlike your guns. It has a purpose other than one of self image.
Sixpence, you made sense with your comment about keeping guns away from your kids. I commend you. Thats the reason I did it. Believe me when I say, that Bow you dont think they can pull, will be the first thing they learn. If you dont need it and it doesnt sound like you do, then dont risk it. Guns and Bows, come and go. Lose one you buy another. Your kid once dead, stays dead.
The best defence your ever going to employ in life consists of your 2 most poweful assets...
1. Your Brain.
2. Your Feet.
-
spook.. I am glad that our police are not so cowardly and self serving as you obviously are. Our cops reccomend that citizens get a firearm all the time. I work for the city and the range is on my facility.. Not one city cop feels that citizens should be disarmed.
You know nothing about the experiances of the people you are talking about on this board but if you have only had to pull a gun a couple of times then maybe a lot of us know as much or more about it than you. Allso... the wild dogs I have killed have all been killed with handguns. They are.... handy.
I think you are justifying your fears and jealousy. I get along well with the police but realize that the response time is too long to be of any use except for insurance purposes. They realize that too.
oh... and I prefer my stainless mini 14 to your pumpkin gun in the pic. (ak's and sks's are called pumpkin guns in the U.S. because of the pumpkin sized groups at 100 yards for typical examples).
our cops also know that the bad men LIKE to hurt the weak and unarmed. Unlike your cowardly and stupid butt tho... they realize that guns in the hands of the citizen will stop a lot of the pain and they don't want to sacrafice the safety of the people they serve in order to gain a false sense of safety for themselves.
I can show you pictures of me with any weapon that a large swat team may use.. They don't seem to be too frieghtend to let me fire em off when they bust em out... in fact... we have some good firearms discussions... I told em about your posts...the ones that aren't shaking their heads about you are laughing their bellybutton off.
lazs
-
*****
spook-
Why do I carry a gun on duty?
Well cause some of the bad men would like to hurt, kill and maim me is why. They may not have a gun either. They may bring a crowbar, a knife, a dirty sock and comic book. It doesnt matter to me. I want to go home to my family at night just as much as you do.
******
hey, same reason I have a gun.
-
Well, dogs are the first line of defense. But there are different cases, such as work. I worked at a restaurant in jax ,fl. We had a back door we kept locked. We would unlock it at the end of the night to dump the garbage. Well, one night someone was waiting out back......with a gun. We were robbed at gunpoint. After that the owner decided to keep a gun on the premises. When we would dump the garbage, the asst. manager would carry the gun, unlock the door, and watch us till we got back from the dumpster. You can't disarm the public, then only the crooks will have them.
BTW, even though I don't hunt...how could ya hunt? Speaking of which, ever since they banned goose hunting in ma., the goose population has exploded........and they're sh*tting everywhere!!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
spook.. I am glad that our police are not so cowardly and self serving as you obviously are. Our cops reccomend that citizens get a firearm all the time. I work for the city and the range is on my facility.. Not one city cop feels that citizens should be disarmed.
How big is the range within a Municipal Toilet facility?
Your Cops sound like Cluster F*** Rookies if their telling you that. I suspect you've spoken with 1 Cop whilst he has been squeezing his zits in the bathroom mirror and admiring the Long Pants he's now allowed to wear.
"Sure" he says
"Arm them all ! You should get one to Laz ol' son. Bullets n Bombs for everyone ! That'll make the streets safe and eh? If the Sh*t hits the fan, with luck everyone will have wiped themselves out before I get there and that can only make life easier."
You know nothing about the experiances of the people you are talking about on this board but if you have only had to pull a gun a couple of times then maybe a lot of us know as much or more about it than you. Allso... the wild dogs I have killed have all been killed with handguns. They are.... handy.
Did they ever find out how that wild Pekinese escaped from Old Lady Simpsons back yard ?Guess you had to kill it. Ya gotta protect the chickens after all
I think you are justifying your fears and jealousy. I get along well with the police but realize that the response time is too long to be of any use except for insurance purposes. They realize that too.
Thats hardly an excuse Laz to let them all have a bang bang and do their own policing. Ya'll could form a posse!
our cops also know that the bad men LIKE to hurt the weak and unarmed. Unlike your cowardly and stupid butt tho... they realize that guns in the hands of the citizen will stop a lot of the pain and they don't want to sacrafice the safety of the people they serve in order to gain a false sense of safety for themselves.
Which member of avacado told you that? The one last through the door or the one that uses his head to break it? Im fairly confident your full of BS there Laz. Unless of course this is from a Copper from Backwater Arkansaw who spends his day hiding behind a road sign waiting for the Blues mobile to motor on by and who's "war stories" include the "homeless vagrant" story of mid 98 and the "Grand Larceny lawnmower theft that ripped through the Burbs in the late 80's?
I can show you pictures of me with any weapon that a large swat team may use.. They don't seem to be too frieghtend to let me fire em off when they bust em out... in fact... we have some good firearms discussions... I told em about your posts...the ones that aren't shaking their heads about you are laughing their bellybutton off.
lazs
Sounds like a real bunch of Cowboys if there letting you play with the very firearms they have to entrust their lives unto. Glad their on your side of the pond. I'm laughing to. Tell them we're all having a hoo dad of a time. Yippee Kai yay Laz. :)
-
Muhahaha,mamamamaahhohoh!!
-
"How big is the range within a Municipal Toilet facility? "
well... I am on 500 acres which is a lot in the bay area of CA. so it is very attractive for the various police forces in the area to use. I would say 3 police forces, sheriffs and all their swat teams and highway patrol.. maybe 200 officers but I will ask.
"Did they ever find out how that wild Pekinese escaped from Old Lady Simpsons back yard ?Guess you had to kill it. Ya gotta protect the chickens after all "
actually.. they were fairly large misxed breeds running 60 lbs and up.. they hjunt in packs and kill livestock in the area. Local ranchers kill em and hang the carcass's on barbed wire fences. I kill em cause I don't like three growling dogs running at me while I'm in the field.
"Thats hardly an excuse Laz to let them all have a bang bang and do their own policing. Ya'll could form a posse! "
Huh? slow response time no excuse for protecting yourself from violent criminals in your own home?
"Which member of avacado told you that? The one last through the door or the one that uses his head to break it? Im fairly confident your full of BS there Laz. Unless of course this is from a Copper from Backwater Arkansaw who spends his day hiding behind a road sign waiting for the Blues mobile to motor on by and who's "war stories" include the "homeless vagrant" story of mid 98 and the "Grand Larceny lawnmower theft that ripped through the Burbs in the late 80's? "
geeze... you are defenseve aren't you? Look... sorry I exposed you for being such a self interested coward but I thought it was obvious.
"Sounds like a real bunch of Cowboys if there letting you play with the very firearms they have to entrust their lives unto. Glad their on your side of the pond. I'm laughing to. Tell them we're all having a hoo dad of a time. Yippee Kai yay Laz. "
LOL.. Are you saying that I don't know safe gun handling or that I might... harm one of the firearms? I do most of my own gunsmithing and am pretty safe. I bet I know a lot more about firearms and their proper handling than you do... I know this to be the case because you wouldn't be so frieghtened of em if you knew something about em.
I used to think that aussies were different than brits... that they had some rugged individualism.... I was kinda taken aback when they meekly handed over the means to defend themselves to their government... Listening to you... well... I hope thay are not all as big a wusses as you are.
lazs
-
Apples and Orange, two different cultures regarding firearms cannot be compared.
Just one note:
Lasz, if you comes in one of the coward country of the wussy Europe, dont bring the guns with you, you will have great time, without fears.
It's just a different culture, here you can live an entire life without guns and have no fears, there you need (maybe) the guns to feel safe.
BTW, sex it's better than shooting. :D
If you like shooting more than.... well.... "de gustibus". :D
-
Originally posted by Naso
Apples and Orange, two different cultures regarding firearms cannot be compared.
Yep
It's just a different culture, here you can live an entire life without guns and have no fears, there you need (maybe) the guns to feel safe.
BTW, sex it's better than shooting. :D
If you like shooting more than.... well.... "de gustibus". :D
True, but I don't think thats the case for every place in the US. I'm sure European cities have their relatively "bad" places just as US cities do. There are many places you can go, have a good time, and just feel 'safe' over here.
-
guns or sex? guns or sex or hot rods? why not have all em? better... why not have all of em at the same time? variety, choice and moderation in all things eh?
Seems to me that I can think off a lot of countries where it would be prudent to be armed.
lazs
-
Heh, there's not a single place in this city i avoid.
Except the yards and houses of Hells Angels and Bandidos.
-
You need to practise more on the fly Laz. I can see the bait is stopping against the current. Let out the drag, let it flow with the current.
Australian, Brit, Canuck or Aussie. Our Cultures differ dramatically in some ways but essentially as human being we are all pink on the inside.
Guns dont frighten me in the slightest. People with guns give me concerns. Now post me a white feather and call me a Greenie tree hugging save the green tree frog hippy if you like, but people are unpredictable.
This picture you paint of a Red, White and Blue American Householder armed with Rifle and Bow standing chin up, shoulders back and chest out at his front door, with a raccoon on his head for a hat and protecting his family, his property and his womens virtues is essentially one big sloppy, fly breeding pile of doo doo.
The guy who lives next door to you, is the same guy who lives next door to me and the same guy who lives next door to Toad, Mav, Tronski and Beetle. He is subject to the same fears, emotions and responses as the guy who lives on the other side of him. He may live beside you for 50 years and be the best neighbour you ever had, a good mate and a model citizen. Or he could be the guy raping your wife after a night on the booze and a bad football game while your out hunting natures furry creatures.
Do you want a firearm in his hands?
and should you ever visit the great land of Oz Laz, be sure to visit our pubs and make comment on us being Cowards. We may be to afraid to respond to your American manliness and we may all cower in a corner. I suspect that you may recieve a different response. But eh? You'll never know less you give it a go :)
Let me know how it goes if you do.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
This picture you paint of a Red, White and Blue American Householder armed with Rifle and Bow standing chin up, shoulders back and chest out at his front door, with a raccoon on his head for a hat and protecting his family, his property and his womens virtues is essentially one big sloppy, fly breeding pile of doo doo.
excellent stereotype
-
Spook,
No time to answer fully as I have to work after classes now.
In short you seem to suffer from a serious stereotype of Americans. Not my problem as long as you stay over there.
You seem to think I support a gun in every household. I never said that and do not support that. I do not support ownership of firearms for felons and quite a few misdemeanor offenders as well.
You seem to think you are superior and have better judgement than the majority of your countrymen and are therefor better suited to own a firearm or use one in your profession. That screams of arrogance in that you openly flaunt the carrying of a weapon but do not trust your neighbors to own one responsibly, absent any criminal intent or misuse of one. Here in the US an Officer is supposed to uphold the rights of their fellow citizens and act in the interest of protecting them and the Constitution that guarantees those rights. Denial of liberty and property is only the result of criminal actions of the individual, not a blanket condemnation of the entire society.
The very idea that the society that paid my salary and supported my actions is not responsible to excercise the smae freedoms I do is not consistant with a rational societal make up. Perhaps your countrymen are more used to and need daily guidance on how to behave than here. Here the government is a representative of the people and gains authority from the people (citizens) not the other way around.
As to the cowardous label someone else applied, I do not agree with it. I have seen the history of your countries fight to maintain liberty in the world (aka WW2 and so on.) so that clearly doesn't apply and was a cheap shot. The steady erosion of what were the "priveledges" your citizens enjoyed in the guise of "protecting" them seems to smack of paternalism.
Got to go.
Cya's
-
Damn.. well said Maverick.
AKDejaVu
-
I have to go to work. (everything left to the last minute) I'll respond after.
Put a bit more effort in Deja. That was a nice post Mav. Not entirely accurate but a good one none the less. Laz, hurry up and reply.
At the Brits might say......toodle pip.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Put a bit more effort in Deja. That was a nice post Mav. Not entirely accurate but a good one none the less. Laz, hurry up and reply.
Dunno why I'd even have to try after that one Spook. He said it better than I could and it seems to have shut you up pretty well.
AKDejaVu
-
Mav : The very idea that the society that paid my salary and supported my actions is not responsible to excercise the same freedoms I do is not consistant with a rational societal make up. Perhaps your countrymen are more used to and need daily guidance on how to behave than here. Here the government is a representative of the people and gains authority from the people (citizens) not the other way around.
[/b]
Well said, Mav.
-
Here too.
Of course, here we know what democracy means.
-
The very idea that the society that paid my salary and supported my actions is not responsible to excercise the smae freedoms I do is not consistant with a rational societal make up. Perhaps your countrymen are more used to and need daily guidance on how to behave than here. Here the government is a representative of the people and gains authority from the people (citizens) not the other way around.
As to the cowardous label someone else applied, I do not agree with it. I have seen the history of your countries fight to maintain liberty in the world (aka WW2 and so on.) so that clearly doesn't apply and was a cheap shot. The steady erosion of what were the "priveledges" your citizens enjoyed in the guise of "protecting" them seems to smack of paternalism.
No-ones saying you can't own a gun in this country, but this government has listened to what the populace has asked to do.
Remove types of guns from people who don't need them.
People who live in cities don't need Barettas, Glocks, just like Farmers don't need a SKS, Car-15 or M-16.
If you want to shoot as a hobby, you may but you have to join a gun club to do it. Here handguns have only been available to bona-fide members of approved pistol clubs and to gun collectors. What is so unreasonable about that?
When was the last time an Olympic competitor used a 9mm semi-automatic pistol in competition?
The argument about rights being erroded is irrelevant in this country when it comes to gun control, because there is no right to own a firearm. Indeed it is a privelege which is not being taken away, but you don't have carte-blanche to own whatever you want.
The government doesn't baby sit us, because if an unreasonable law comes into being the people in this country do and have told the government to stick it. But these laws are not unreasonable and Australians on the whole recognise it and want them - and that is democracy.
Comparing the gun culture and society between Australia and America is stupid. Our differing history, system of government, social welfare systems, crime rates etc make that unjustified - compare us to another commonwealth country and you'll see our gun laws are indeed similar.
Tronsky
-
SC-Spook
Go easy on AKDejaVu. He comes from a place where you can choose from an enormous array of lethal weapons which you can keep at home. But when the car is running low on fuel, and you stop at the gas station, you're not allowed to pump your own gas, and someone else has to do it for you. :rolleyes:
-
Heh Beetle. Sound like the days of Arthur Fonzarelli are alive and well. Back then they called it "Service". Now they call it "Mistrust." Best part about those days were Drive in theatres. Ahh how I miss them.
Now for another congratulatory post. This time for the Aussies..Well said Tronski ! It appears the rationality of your post is lost on our American friends. Notice laz, the use of the word friends. Noone here is your enemy. We are all "Allies"
(Even with the silly ones :) )
Back to the matter at hand...(pause to open up another window for page 1. )
For brevity I shall deal with Mav's post. As stated, a good one. Well written for a short reply and mature of thought as Id expect from one with his experience.
I do not expect all Police Officers, past or present to agree with my beliefs. Whether they be in the States, in the Mother Country or here home in Oz. My opinions are my own and I base them from my own experience and form them as a result of my own personal conclusions.
I do not use Statistics to tell me whether I am right or wrong as I neither like them nor trust them. Notice I do not quote Statistics in support of my arguement and the one post I did use them actually benefitted the alterior arguement to the thread. I like to play fair. Im not saying your wrong. Just that your not right either.
Nowhere have I stated in any way shape or form that I am the sole person to be trusted with a firearm. (Nice attempt at subversive manouvreing tho boys. The greatest lies are half truths. Use them all the time ;) ) Now to my least favorite part of interesting debates....quotes. I choose my good mate and American collegue in Blue, Mav.
In short you seem to suffer from a serious stereotype of Americans. Not my problem as long as you stay over there.
Id like nothing better than to come and visit you boys. In fact its on the cards. A couple of your countrymen have been good enough to avail themselves of my hospitality and I have found them to be excellent people. A 3rd "Yank" heads my way early next year. I suspect I shall like him to.
I do not believe I suffer from the stereo typing you suggest Mav. Every country has its share of idiots. Yours and mine, however that is not how I view the American People. I neither think of them as Warmongers, Capitilist pigs or Infidels. Just normal people who enjoy the same things in general we do over here.
You guys seem more than a little bent out of shape on your fixation with internal Politics and statistically driven sports but other than that you appear normal to me.
The mentality of Firearm ownership is not new to me. As stated previously in another thread, it was one I once shared. I perhaps have been fortunate tho, that I have lived in both areas of this debate. What your countrymen hold as their "right" to possess firearms is no different, tho admittedly on a larger scale, to what my own did, not so long ago. Change was forced upon us. Strangely, it appears to work and we now live in a different culture from before. I post not out of malice or blatant obsessive ignorance but as one who has seen and lived through both sides of the arguement.
Do you think we werent saying the exact same thing you all are now in arguement concerning Gun Ownership? Think again.
You seem to think I support a gun in every household. I never said that and do not support that. I do not support ownership of firearms for felons and quite a few misdemeanor offenders as well.
Not at all. I do not think for a moment you support felons or Crims as we know them here having possession of Firearms. That would be absurd. My arguements however have not been whether or not Crims should be in possession of firearms but the ordinary householder. If you look back though my posts in this thread, I give my reasons. The principle being that you are more likely to be killed by the innocent man than the guilty one. (Inner City scum holes not withstanding.....and yes, we have them to)
You seem to think you are superior and have better judgement than the majority of your countrymen and are therefor better suited to own a firearm or use one in your profession. That screams of arrogance in that you openly flaunt the carrying of a weapon but do not trust your neighbors to own one responsibly, absent any criminal intent or misuse of one.
(I'll seperate this paragraph, using this as part 1 to best illustrate my response to it. I dont believe it will detract from its intent as originally posted)
Well perhaps without Deja's rapid response reply you may have thought a little more before posting this bit. (Your post was looking pretty good up till here :) )
In many respects, I wouldnt trust some of my countrymen with a butterknife, let alone a semi auto rifle. I highly suspect you would say that of some of your own without much arguement.
Superior is a strong word and smacks of egotism. Deja may remember one Gaming Programmer calling me a "Megalomaniac" some years ago. It sticks in my memory as I remember laughing out loud and saying "He's got me". I am certainly a confident person, tho I would not say over confident as they always tend to come unstuck somewhere down the line. At the same time, I bleed as well as the next man and in this country, those with big heads, generally end up getting them punctured :) Something I try to avoid at the best of times.
I dont openly "flaunt" carrying a weapon either. I comment on it in this thread as thats the threads purpose. The pic as previously stated was humour for Laz. I have 1 picture of a colt .45 in my house that the wife made for me. Thats my only claim to flaunting. I carry a firearm for occupational useage but you dont see me hunting anymore. I've gone from small and furry to big and scaley. Fish are my prey now. Its more relaxing.
As my countryman, Tronski has indicated, Firearms arent that big an issue in this country unless you live up north where red headed step children run free and teeth run sideways. Hence outside my occupation, there little room for discussion on the subject in my lifestyle and even then we curse the damn things cause they are a b*tch to get in and out of a car with.
Here in the US an Officer is supposed to uphold the rights of their fellow citizens and act in the interest of protecting them and the Constitution that guarantees those rights. Denial of liberty and property is only the result of criminal actions of the individual, not a blanket condemnation of the entire society.
Now this Mav, is GOLD! Mav GOLD!
A well structured section of literature and may I say, the defining point in your post that has your American brothers hooked. Combining a smidgen of Patriotism with the herioc blue figurine upholding and protecting the most sacred of annuls, your Constitution. The subtle introduction of Liberty and sanctity of rights for the working Class man really has Pulitzer written all over it.
I tell ya Mav, your writing my next speech !
Ok, enough of my santimonious dribble :)
Your job however Mav, is/was the same as mine. We acknowledge as individuals that we joined and serve to protect the lives and property of those around us. We know, that we are in the employ NOT of the people, but the Government that pays us our wages. The people riot, pillage and plunder when left to their own devices. We serve the common good. The people do not often see that as they are concerned in the now.
-
The people are free to rise up against the Government. You and I are not. (Unless we quit and leave our mates standing in the front lines alone.) Thats not the Aussie thing to do, and I imagine the brothers in Blue on the line in the States are no different to us in that respect.
When the people rise up Mav, if your wearing the uniform, your going to be standing on the other side. Your heart may be with the people, but your mind and body (and those are the bits that are gonna get hurt) will be facing them, baton and OC in hand, doing our bit for God, King and President. That my friend is a Policemens unhappy lot. No matter where you are in the world.
Denial of liberty has nothing ! to do with Gun ownership. Thats a fantasy ingrained on minds which use it as an excuse to justify their own causes. Sometimes what the people want is not what they should have. Full stop. Otherwise, we'd all be bombed out under a tree somewhere, scraping cones and wrapping foils.
Mass possession of Firearms as a deterent to Crime is no different to holding your finger over the nuke button and daring the world to challenge you. History tells us that someone always will. Someone already has.
Perhaps your countrymen are more used to and need daily guidance on how to behave than here. Here the government is a representative of the people and gains authority from the people (citizens) not the other way around.
I suspect that our freedoms are much greater than yours. We all live with rules. We dont like them all, but we as a society tolerate them for the greater good.
Not a slight against your country in any way, but as far as freedoms go, I will take Australia's over yours any day of the wet week. We have it a little to good at times.
Now this bit about the Government being representative of the people and gain authority from the people bit. UGHHH. Come on Mav. You are obviously an intelligent man. You surely dont believe that crap any more than I do. Which citizen was Clinton representing when Monika was smoking his cigar? Who was the entire Political assembly of Florida representing when they were smoking the vote or any of the other cluster ****'s that you guys have seen in various representative positions in your States.
Hell man, we have them to on occassion but nothing compared to the beauties you guys have lit up the world with!
Now ex- Mayor Julianni (Sp?) NewYork? Now there is a politician. Vote him in as Prez and you gain my political respect.
Governments dont serve the people Mav. They serve the State. They do what the people are unwilling to do themselves. They make the decisions and people bleed from the eyes with cries about ignored rights and priviliges they imagine they have. We enforce the will of the Government. Not the will of the people.
We work in the business of reminding these people of their rights. Sell the Government spool to those silly enough with a patriotic tear in their eye to believe it. But dont sell it to those of us who know better. And I believe that includes you.
Im not painting them as monsters. Just putting the cool hard light of day on an otherwise ambiqous choice of wording.
As to the cowardous label someone else applied, I do not agree with it. I have seen the history of your countries fight to maintain liberty in the world (aka WW2 and so on.) so that clearly doesn't apply and was a cheap shot.
For me personally, this was your winning paragraph. Thank you. I in turn believe the same of your Country.
and now back to Deja... :)
(Damn that was a loooong reply :) )
-
spook... i didn't call all aussies cowards. I claimed that your hysterical views on firearms were based on cowardice and.... that they had no base in reality. I would be glad to say it to your face if we ever meet. I would rather say something to someones face than on here. If you are so unstable as to want to fight over it I will be glad to oblidge and.... I will better understand why you have such little faith in your fellow human beings. Our police, fortunately, have a better opinion of those they serve.
I don't care what you "feel" is the case with your or mine or everyones neighbors. I don't fear my neigbors with firearms. I don't fear the 2 million plus people out there with concealed carry permits. Why should I? they have proven to be no danger... they in fact... have prioven to be a deterent. Why you "feel" is fun to listen to... like beetle... you are eloquent but... It is devoid of content. Like a politicians speech... all emotion and feeling and no sense.
I am not your enemy but I oppose your desire to confiscate firearms in our country. I was not aware that in your country you had voted on the issue of the gun confiscation. I fail to see how a single shot or bolt action could kill less people in the hands of someone like say our DC sniper who took one shot art a time.
lazs
-
Oh.. and sook... if the people do rise up in a just cause and you oppose them/us with firearms then naturally I would like to have the best weapons available to oppose your enforcement of tyranny. You make the case that was made over 200 years ago here.
lazs
-
Dear Laz. Thats Spook .
I believe the term that best serves justice to your outlook on life my friend is "Ignorant Bliss".
Dear friend, answer me this if you would do this limp wristed tissue user the courtesy,
Q Do you keep a loaded, actioned firearm at home?
-
what does "actioned" mean? Most of my firearms are loaded. I have about a dozen of which 8 or nine are loaded. No need to keep the .303 loaded or the garrand. The mini 14 is loaded. The walther and both 44's are loaded with winchester silvertips and the the 1911 is full of ball ammo. If "actioned" means..."one in the chamber then my revolvers (those guns with the round cylinders) are "actioned" My semi autos (walther and 1911) both have rounds in the chamber.. Mini 14 has 30 round mag but none in the spout. 1898 winchester pump has full mag and one in spout. 1917 smith (revolver, roundy looking thing you put bullets in) has full moon clip of ball ammo (full moon clip is spring steel thingy that holds 45 auto rounds so that they can be ejected by smith ejector star.).
I would say that judging by your posts and the fact that all your "data" is how you "feel" about a place you have never even been to and an issue that you have never studied...... It is you who equates ignorance with bliss rather than I.
It is good tho that you are reading these threads as in your line of work it may be useful to you to learn a tiny bit about firearms.. Anything else you need to know just ask.
lazs
-
Oh... and all told... I have maybe 1000 or so rounds of ammo of the various calibers that I shoot. A good portion of that is handloads that I have made myself. I enjoy shrinking group size over factory ammo and I enjoy the savings. When I go out to shoot... It costs me a couple of dollars for gas... It costs me about five dollars a box to shoot my 44's and 45's. When I take people I can allow them to shoot all they like at that price.
How much would it cost for a normal citizen of your country to go out and shoot a couple of hundred rounds of 44's or 45's (4 boxes@50 rnds per box equals 20 dollars U.S.)??
Every person that I have ever taken out shooting has thoroughly enjoyed themselves and wanted to know more about getting their own gun if they didn't allready own one. No one has ever been injured (except from some flesh web to slide contact) during these outings.
Why would you deny us this right?
2 millon plus people in the U.S. have concealed carry permits and to date... none of them have been involved in negligent homicides or even injuries..
why would you disarm them?
lazs
-
Wow... lazs actually makes sense once in a while.
Spook,
You are becoming insulting and not making any sense. Of course, lazs is always that way... but you are beginning to eclipse him.
And you're not listening one bit to anything people in this thread or saying... nor are you really reading what you yourself are writing.
Something I really remember about you spook. You come to conclusions about people based on little to no real information. You then procede to stand by that conclusion... right or wrong. You seem to be doomed to fall into that trap for the rest of your life. So... no need to act suprised when yet another person points it out to you.
You did not say you don't trust anyone else with a firearm... just that you don't trust hardly anyone else with a firearm. You can play the words all you want... but you've said this or something like it repeatedly in this thread.
AKDejaVu
-
thanks deja.... I have seen one or two of your posts that weren't insulting and nonsensical too.
lazs
-
Spook: Sometimes what the people want is not what they should have
Yeah. Down with that whole Democracy thing where the people decide what they want!
Go Nanny, Go!
-
Deja, im not sure what opinion you think I have formed of anyone here?
Does someone who owns a lot of weapons automatically fall into the catergory of dangerous gun nut? Of course not. Does 1 in a 100? maybe. With guns per Capita in your country then that would seem a little risky to me. (yes I pulled that figure out of my rear end to highlight a point as an example).
Im not insulting anyone in this thread. Ive stated that my opinions are my own and your mileage is free to vary. Im not accusing Laz or anyone else of being a wildcard with a gun. Im stating, that these people exist and your current gun policy increases the risk of allowing these people to cause harm.
Now the question I asked Laz could apply to anyone of you supportive of your current policy. I can ask you the same. The question was a (excuse the pun) loaded one.
You have all near exhausted yourselves telling me how utterly responsible you are with firearms. That I, a mere Aussie living in a Dictatorship and suffering the abuses of having my freedoms taken from me, have no concept of the American people and your ways and therefore have no arguement in relation to this debate as what your telling me and the good people who look on this thread, is that your population (minus felons) can all be trusted with things that go bang in their hands.
I'm stating clearly so that there is no misinterpretation of my comments....
I have rarely heard such a pathetic load of old codswallop as some of the rubbish you are trying to expound in regard to your citizens.
Now I dont doubt that the American people are good people on the whole. No more or less than Australians, Brits and Canucks as I have stated many times before.
You and others in this thread have waved the Flag so many times in defence of your countrymen that it borders on absurd. You use the Flag excuse because this is a constitutional right and that because Americans can own Firearms and raise up against your own Government should it ever be deemed necessary to do so. You use the Flag and wave it in the face of the world stating that Americans can do no wrong and our system regarding firearm ownership is a deterent to violent crime and my neighbour wont shoot me cause he knows Ill shoot him back. You use your own Flag waving and institutionised Patriotism as a self defence mechanism in defending yourselves.
Firstly let me make this point. Now get his in your head so we're all "Crystal" on it.
Having a Gun in your hands has nothing to do with your nationality and charming disposition. Your Flag and your constitution wont mean Squat to the guy in the black balaclava creeping through your window.
Using that Gun has nothing to do with outdated rubbish bits of paper that you can frequently use as a crutch to excuse your ill gotten behaviours. It wont stop a knife. It sure as heck aint gonna stop a bullet.
Human Behaviour is not an "American" thing. Emotional response and reaction stand true for the entire human race, yours and mine and the colour of the stars and stripes on their underwear does not give them instantaneous rational response when dealing with whatever problem they may imagine themselves with.
Your killers have the same motivations mine do. Your victims suffer the same grief mine do. Your bullets kill every bit as effectively as mine do. Forget your outmoded paper crutch and speak in the now.
Any firearm owner that keeps a loaded weapon in their house (actioned is the weapon ready for use at the pull of the trigger Laz, my esteemed and knowledgeable gunsmith) is NOT a responsible gun owner. It is the trait of any or all of the following catergories.
a. Egotism
b. Paranoid
c. Ignorant
d. Stupid
e. All of the above.
What possible reason is there to keep a loaded firearm in the house?
You tell me, your not afraid of your neighbour. You tell me you are not concerned whether or not he or she owns a gun.
Yet you keep one in case he comes through your door wanting a nasty with the cat or something. You wont put your gun down because your neighbour holds one. You wont ask him to put his down because you may be asked to do the same. You need it in case he doesnt. He needs it incase you dont. Define paranoia for me?...no no no...let me ;)
n. form of insanity in which patients believe themselves to be people of great importance, or think themselves persecuted by everyone. paranoiac, paranoic, n. & a. paranoid, a.
You tell me that you use it for sporting purposes only. Then why is it loaded? Will the rabbits and brown eyed bucks rise up, grab sharpened carrot sticks and sneak into your bedroom in the middle of the night? No.
You keep a loaded firearm because you fear the time you may need to use it. You risk that very same firearm being used against you and your family now not only by those who come into your house already armed but now by those who come in unarmed and find themselves in a corner having been found. Or the opportunist who suddenly sees a way to increase his gain.
You put your own life at risk and that of your family.
But no, you say. My loaded firearm is locked up safe and secure.
Nothing is safe and secure. Military and Police magazines and armourys are broken into all the time. The wall or floor safe that the manafacturer tells you is 100% guarenteed is only going to stop the completely uninitiated. No firearm is 100% safe.
Toad: Down with Cowboys. Democracy has nothing to do with plain common sense.
Deja, I fear my friend that it is you who isnt reading things properly as Ive had to repeat myself many times already. Do me a favour and read this one twice. I will to, just to be on the safe side.
Now if you dont fall into any of the above catergories and you have a sensible reason to keep a loaded firearm that I am not aware of, please tell our readers what it is. 2 things are not acceptable valid reasons of common sense.
1. Your Flag (which is unlikely to crawl under your bed)
2. Your Constitution (which will protect you as much as a wet banana)
Do tell..
and Deja, no offence but one last thing.
Anyone who trusts their lives in the hands of the guy who lives 5 houses down and is only seen watering his yard on Sundays is nothing but a complete and utter moron. Not saying thats you mate. That goes for anyone.
-
Excellent, excellent post, Spook. In particular, I liked this:
You tell me that you use it for sporting purposes only. Then why is it loaded?
-
Spook,
You displayed your assumptions again about me in particular and the American public in general in your posts. Please do not deign to speak for me or what I believe. You really don't have it right.
Your last post really hit the nail on the head in what I was trying to iterate to you earlier about your misconception of the American society and in particular the constitution. Here it is regarded with a bit of, shall we say "reverance" in that it was the documant that set us apart from many of the "modern democracies". I meant exactly what I said about the paternalism of the government you expressed in your posts about being protected. Passing a law to remove property from those who have not misused it and have shown no obvious intentions of criminal misuse is a very paternalistic approach. I prefer my government not tell me that it knows better than I how to live my life in detail.
The mandate "from the people" is very real here. It is the basis for our legal government. It states simply that the citizens (those who have not relinquished their rights by commision of a felony) are represented by those in government, not ruled by them.
The following lines from your post were particularly telling in your opinion of the legal document that explains the limitations on our government. Using that Gun has nothing to do with outdated rubbish bits of paper that you can frequently use as a crutch to excuse your ill gotten behaviours. It wont stop a knife. It sure as heck aint gonna stop a bullet.
That "outdated rubbish bits of paper" are the legal basis for our government. I suppose you would think that freedom of speech, religion are out dated too. They are in the first ammendments as well. Another part of that "rubbish" is the freedom from self incrimination and from unreasonable search and siezure. These are not rights granted by our government. They are RESTRICTIONS placed UPON our government. They are sanctions placed to insure the goverment we have remains a representative of the people (citizens) and not a keeper of them. The fact that they are listed as ammendment and are additions to the constitution indicate how important the "founding fathers" felt they were. They understood that a government cannot grant ritghts but they take them away. As a representative of that same government I was requiired to take classes to insure I understood what those restrictions were and how to respect them. The denial of liberty was meant to refer to the awsome powers of arrest ( I thought you would understand) not the ownership of firearms. Anyone can be taught how to take an individual in custody. It is much more difficult to teach WHEN to take a person under arrest.
As I stated in my post there are those whose actions have shown they cannot be trusted and as such they lost some constitutional rights. That is part of the penalty for being a convicted felon here. You do not have to be convicted of a firearm crime to lose the right to have a firearm. They had to show that they couldn't be trusted and suffered the loss of those liberties. To have my property confiscated upon penalty of loss of my liberty for something I had nothing to do with is not just. I ask you again. When is the punishment of the many for the transgressions of the few warranted?
Another section of your post was this. Having a Gun in your hands has nothing to do with your nationality and charming disposition. Your Flag and your constitution wont mean Squat to the guy in the black balaclava creeping through your window. That constitution means I have the means to deal with the guy in the black balaclava creeping through my window. Since this individual is obviously ignoring the law by breaking into my house I have to assume he wouldn't hesitate to break another by assaulting or trying to kill me. Because the constition affirms my right to defend myself from the felonioius assult, I can do so with an effective tool, not just a hurried phone call to the Police who will certainly arrive in time to record what has already happened.
A wonderful bit of irony is this paragraph you posted. You tell me, your not afraid of your neighbour. You tell me you are not concerned whether or not he or she owns a gun.
Yet you keep one in case he comes through your door wanting a nasty with the cat or something. You wont put your gun down because your neighbour holds one. You wont ask him to put his down because you may be asked to do the same. You need it in case he doesnt. He needs it incase you dont. Define paranoia for me?...no no no...let me
Please tell me who is more paranoid, the one who desires to have a firearm or the one who feels their neigbors shouldn't be allowed to have one even though they have not committed any offense or that they MIGHT sometime in the future do something wrong? They might also commit a traffic offense, do we take everyones vehicles away? Do we take every privately owned plane away because some cowards used one to kill thousands of people?
The last thing I'll pull out of your post was the arrogant classification of those who disagree with your opinion.
Any firearm owner that keeps a loaded weapon in their house (actioned is the weapon ready for use at the pull of the trigger Laz, my esteemed and knowledgeable gunsmith) is NOT a responsible gun owner. It is the trait of any or all of the following catergories.
a. Egotism
b. Paranoid
c. Ignorant
d. Stupid
e. All of the above.
Since I keep loaded firearm, as I have since I was first commisioned an Officer, I assume you feel I suffer from one of the above traits. I find that to be rather arrogant of you. I think you place a quite shortsighted (myopic to the level of Mr. Magoo I think) view of the country here with these categories of labels. Do you take your firearm home with you or do you lock it at the station since you have no need for a loaded actioned firearm? After all the bad men / women wouldn't do any harm when you're not working would they?
-
Hear, O Jupiter and you too, Juno---Romulus also, and all the celestial, terrestrial, and infernal gods! Give us ear! I call you to witness that this nation (insert one of your choice) is unjust, and has acted contrary to right. And as for us, we will consult thereon with our elders in our homeland, as to how we may obtain our rights.
The above was part of a dedicated speech and traditional to how Rome formally declared War on its transgressors. There was also the ritual spear throwing at the end of the speech but it was to long to include it all.
Where is Rome now?
A name on a Pizza box and home for the old guy in the bullet proof bubble.
How we hold these things dear.
Dont even get me started on Religon Mav :)
I ask you again. When is the punishment of the many for the transgressions of the few warranted?
The difference between our cultures in this debate and the answer to your question which has answered itself.
Punishment.
We do not consider it a punishment.
Do you take your firearm home with you or do you lock it at the station since you have no need for a loaded actioned firearm? After all the bad men / women wouldn't do any harm when you're not working would they?
Good question. My firearm remains at work, actioned and loaded.
The only time it comes home is when I come with it at the hip. Its stay is short and uneventful. I have no wish for my boy to blow his or my head off.
Anybody wishing to come into my home uninvited will meet other suprises. Not the less of which, the one that bears lots of teeth.
-
spook... as usual you have produced a great wall of words full of "feeling" and your opinons while totaly ignoring reality... I don't think that there is one bit of content to either of your last posts. although... there are some glaring observations you make that show how paranoid and stupid and cowardly you are.
In the U.S. all responsible gun owners have been taught first thing (it is even on the basic firearms ceertificate tests) that.... all guns are to be treated as if they were loaded. Never point a gun at anything you don't wish to destroy. With so many firearms I find it better to go by this rule. I also find that the guns I may use in self defense are much handier if they are loaded. I hope that you never get old enough that you wish you had a firearm and..... didn't.
You also assume that we only have firearms for sporting purpose. That is not true. as many have stated we have them for deterance and protection and any of a number of reasons... the reasons are really unimportant... the right to keep and bear them is.
Our constitution is a piece of meaningless rag? Really? well I do get the impression that uk types want a daddy to oversee their lives and tell them what freedoms they deem 'safe'
You feel that being of sound body and able to keep large dogs that ...welll that is a good reason to take away everyone elses rights.... What about the old and infirm? Apartment dwellers? You seem exceedingly paranoiid and selfish to me. And... I don't belive that 1 in 100 of my neigbors is a danger to me... not even 1 in 1000. I believe that criminals are a danger to me. If my neighbor happens to be a criminal then for sure he wil be armed.. I would like some parity.
You and beetle can't get it hrough yur head that you are not advocating a little inconvience in a sport. I have used my guns in sport and defense. I have filed the police report after (as maverick so eloquently asserts) and everything went fine. No one was hurt... least of all me or mine. It was all over before the operator took us off hold.
all in all... I guess most of your attitude is attributable to a very bad police mentality of "them against us" That is why we retire our police so young... everyuone get's cynical when faced with overloads of poor human behaviour.... You should do everyone a favor and retire. Another aspect is fawning dependence on your government to tell you what is right and wrong... A lack of independance that we are not yet ready to embrace in this country.
I hope that, coupled with your lack of content explains why so many here find your views moronic and alien.
best of luck to you.
lazs
-
I find myself wondering what kind of dogs you have, Spook. Hopefully not anything potentially dangerous, like Rottweilers or Pitt Bulls. I wouldn't wanna hafta go pulling stats on the numbers of dogs turning on their owners or their kids. Then again, I kinda doubt a chihuahua with a spike collar is really much of a deterrent, eh? ;)
FWIW I own two handguns and a rifle. Not an arsenal, but enough for me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thanks deja.... I have seen one or two of your posts that weren't insulting and nonsensical too.
lazs
Your wit has few peers! :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
spook... as usual you have produced a great wall of words full of "feeling" and your opinons while totaly ignoring reality... I don't think that there is one bit of content to either of your last posts. although... there are some glaring observations you make that show how paranoid and stupid and cowardly you are.
I was of the opinion you were ignoring all reasonable content anyway. I thought id delve into the realm of fantasy for a bit and explore your world :)
In the U.S. all responsible gun owners have been taught first thing (it is even on the basic firearms ceertificate tests) that.... all guns are to be treated as if they were loaded. Never point a gun at anything you don't wish to destroy. With so many firearms I find it better to go by this rule. I also find that the guns I may use in self defense are much handier if they are loaded. I hope that you never get old enough that you wish you had a firearm and..... didn't.
Correct me if im wrong ( I know you shall) But isnt one of the basic fundamental principles alongside those you advocate above, NOT to keep a loaded firearm ? LOL. Are you ignoring some to highlight that you know the others? I cant believe you are silly enough to use that in an arguement with me and think you could just slide it on by.
You need to read all my posts again. Ive owned a lifetimes supply of firearms in the past. Im not missing anything.
You also assume that we only have firearms for sporting purpose. That is not true. as many have stated we have them for deterance and protection and any of a number of reasons... the reasons are really unimportant... the right to keep and bear them is.
Whats important is an entire culture armed to the teeth in the guise of self defence from an threat they claim isnt there and claiming thats the answer because looking for an alternative is to hard.
You repeatedly state that your not frightened by your neighbour. Well the Crims are your neighbours to. And the "Normals" commit violent crimes and suffer moments of idiocy and take opportunitys to. Thats how we ensure we always have a healthy supply of Crims. You are putting firearms in their hands also.
Our constitution is a piece of meaningless rag? Really? well I do get the impression that uk types want a daddy to oversee their lives and tell them what freedoms they deem 'safe'
From a Nation that breeds bullets in the guise of one day possibly rising up against their own daddy, thats a bit rich isnt it? LOL.
You feel that being of sound body and able to keep large dogs that ...welll that is a good reason to take away everyone elses rights.... What about the old and infirm? Apartment dwellers? You seem exceedingly paranoiid and selfish to me. And... I don't belive that 1 in 100 of my neigbors is a danger to me... not even 1 in 1000. I believe that criminals are a danger to me. If my neighbor happens to be a criminal then for sure he wil be armed.. I would like some parity.
Responsibilty for Dog ownership is not really all that different to responsible Gun ownership. Both have simple basic rules you follow to ensure as much safety as possible.
The difference between you and I however, is your apparent need to disobey those which dont suit you.
Apartment dwellers rank alongside the elderly? I dont understand.
You and beetle can't get it hrough yur head that you are not advocating a little inconvience in a sport. I have used my guns in sport and defense. I have filed the police report after (as maverick so eloquently asserts) and everything went fine. No one was hurt... least of all me or mine. It was all over before the operator took us off hold.
I have used mine in defence to. Yet here I am, ownerless at home and still kicking despite a lifetime of being threatened without a firearm in my possession as opposed to those rare time when I did.
You overlook the simplest of principles. If someone wanted you dead. Deliberately set out to see the end of you. You could wrap yourself in an Abrahams Tank with Bandoliers of Ammo littering the ground around you and you would still end up dead.
Where as I am required, as was Mav, to put myself in harms way at times and to deal with lifes scumbags as a daily event. 9.99 % of the time, you and the many thousands life you will encounter or be threatened by these people, maybe once in your entire life. Thats the difference you fail to comprehend when taking me to task about this issue.
You dont need a gun Laz.
all in all... I guess most of your attitude is attributable to a very bad police mentality of "them against us" That is why we retire our police so young... everyuone get's cynical when faced with overloads of poor human behaviour.... You should do everyone a favor and retire. Another aspect is fawning dependence on your government to tell you what is right and wrong... A lack of independance that we are not yet ready to embrace in this country.
Taking a wild stab here. But I assume your Police retire so young (if that is the case) because the chances of them surviving with every swinging d*ck holding onto an M14 gets a little less with each growing day!
Your right on one respect. I should retire. That little house by the lake with the pier running out to a small runabout. That school of rainbow trout that paces its beat 10 feet out from the end of the jetty. The fading orange sunset, the sound of crickets chirping on a warm balmy night and icy droplets from a cold beer stubby falling onto my chin as I lift up another in salute to the fish.
That sounds pretty damn good to me.
Until the idiot across the bay shooting bunnies with his manly Gun, plugs me in the head after falling crossing a fence, cause he carries it loaded everywhere he goes.
I hope that, coupled with your lack of content explains why so many here find your views moronic and alien.
Until you find my spaceship, you have no business calling me an alien. Its not a tail, its a growth !
best of luck to you.
and to you Laz.
Kieran I answered you in the above :)
-
spook... there is obviously a cultural difference here. No where was I taught that a gun should be stored unloaded. There is no need to.
Again.. I see very little content to what yuou say... You don't feel you need firearms (yet) so yu would deny them to others. I find this kind of behavior reprehensible and cowardly.. Your rational that your neighbor may shoot you by accident while hunting bunnies holds no weight... Not here anyway.
Our cops retire at 3% per year at 50. That means that an officer that joins the force at 20 and retires at 50 will get 90% of his salary... Hardly worth going to work for the 10%.
Your telling me that I don't need a gun is ludicrous.. You have no idea who does or dosen't.
The apartment coment was in regard to your keeping large dogs... you seem to feel that this is good enough for anyone... A lot of people can't keep large dogs..
As for me not being able to defend against someone who wants to kill me? Waaaa??? No one is trying to kill me except if I were to be in the way. At that point I certainly would be better off being armed.
The deterent is the thing tho... I feel that my life and goods are safer because criminals are frieghtened of being shot by homeowners or concealed carry people... You really out to read John Lott's book if you wish to actually know what you are talking about. I somehow feel that you will be unable to read it with all those facts and all and no real "feeling"..
lazs
-
Spook,
You chose to answer my post with inane comments totally outside of the scope of the discussion. I can only conclude you do so because you have no cogent response of value. Hint taken and the discussion is ended for you and I.
BTW we do consider it punishment when property is removed by the state from an individual absent any criminal action on the part of the individual. Confiscation under penalty of criminal prosecution is punishment here.
-
Responsibilty for Dog ownership is not really all that different to responsible Gun ownership. Both have simple basic rules you follow to ensure as much safety as possible.
Does this mean we should ban dog ownership? I mean, if the big flap by non-Americans is that Americans have guns, and if dog ownership is about like gun ownership, how could we ever allow dogs? That was kinda my point all along.
The difference between dogs and guns is dogs can't be locked in a safe, gun chest, or holstered under your armpit. I never heard of a gun getting jealous and digging a baby out of a crib for an early afternoon snack. Believe me when I tell you I'd rather you packed a shotgun in the house, heck, even a fully automatic assault rifle, than for you to have a Rottweiler in the yard next door.
-
Oh, and before you respond, I've been bitten by numerous dogs- I was a paper boy. Shephards, Rotts, Pitt Bulls... they all tend to bite with little provocation. Mind you, I am not afraid of dogs, always had 'em, but some breeds are not safe around kids.
-
Boys boys boys. :)
Lets all accept one thing about each other that I think we all will agree with.
We shall never convince the other that we are right and we shall continue in our errant ways (including the cowardly ones for those of us who that applies) forever more long after this thread has been vanquished by the Internet gods.
Mav. It wasnt that I was ignoring you or not giving your post the attention it deserves. It was simply to heavy and laden with Constitutional rhetoric for me at that time of day. I accept your points within it and acknowledge its importance to your countrymen. And the moment I thought of the Roman bit, well, the romantic in me induced an opportunistic moment to utilise its services :)
Also, we are not talking "Property" here likes its an armchair or a set of DVD's. We are talking Firearms. (possession thereof). I understand all to well, the legalities of property ownership and the claim of right, which is slung alongside it. The debate is, whether or not, American Citizens need or should have possession of Firearms in every household, despite their constitutional right to do so. Lets leave the Constitution aside. I understand that within it you have the right. I am arguing do you really need it.
Laz. Ive no idea who John Lott is, but im sure I wouldnt like what he has to say if its supporting your side of the debate. I doubt id last before I had cracked the spine of the book. NRA Prez or something?
Perhaps you are right Laz in that it is a Cultural thing. But even when this country (mine) was at the height of Gun ownership, Common Sense tells us, that keeping a firearm in the loaded condition when not in use was foolhardy.
I dont have to explain the risks, your intelligent enough and as you state, have enough firearms "nouse" to be aware of them already. No amount of self defense excuses warrants those risks for anyone not specifically targetted as a threat by another. I cant imagine a nice guy like you having any enemies. ;)
Kieran. Nice try at an analogy my friend, but it doesnt come close.
Dogs are not the vicious killers you would have us believe unless they are bred that way, live in the wild or are placed in a position where that is an option available to them as defence.
Domestic Dogs are a passive animal generally speaking with exceptions as you point out. You mention some breeds are not meant for kids, this is true. And we can safely state, that NO Gun is safe or them either.
Guns are made, built, manafactured and used for 1 purpose only. To kill. They dont (except if your Laz's gun) lay at your feet while you watch the TV at night. They are not a companion in good times and bad (again exception Laz's gun) and nor do they hump your leg in excited pleasure upon your arrival home...(exception..Laz's Gun) :D
So you may keep a dog at home if you wish and even allow him to keep his teeth in at night. Your safe. Stop delivering junk mail on your route and the owners will stop setting their dogs onto you :)
-
"The debate is, whether or not, American Citizens need or should have possession of Firearms in every household"
Spook, take this with an open mind, and really think it over--
You are suffering from a culture clash here. That one sentence highlights the difference between our systems of government. Unlike in your country, in the USA what you propose to debate is irrevelant. It is NOT irrevelant in your country which is why I assume you say it.
Let me put it this way:
In your country, you can't own a weapon unless you have a reason to own one--the government deciding what are good reasons and what aren't, with the best interests of society in mind. The well-being of society in general is of utmost importance, with the government doing its best to that end.
In America, you decide for yourself whether you need a weapon or not. It is up to each individual to make this decision for himself. Individual freedom is MORE important than the well-being of society as a whole.
"Freedom" in the American sense is much more individual than "freedom" in the British/Commonwealth/European sense.
So yes, I think it stands to reason that the USA will have a somewhat higher crime rate than your country will....as we do make it easier for the criminals. Having more freedom to behave as you wish also means having greater freedom to MIS-behave. This is part of what Americans call the "Price of Freedom". We as a nation are willing to put up with the slightly higher crime (and it really is just a slight difference in real terms) for increased personal freedom.
Think it over. Neither my country nor yours is necessarily right or wrong, they just have different priorities.
J_A_B
-
Spook, you must have been a Roman Centurian in a past life.:D
Les
-
Sounds about right to me J_A_B
Tronsky
-
Very well written J_A_B. That sums up my feelings too. I'm a Southern boy, and I get riled when them Brits and Aussies call me a Yank...and now they tryin to get our guns away from us. We better watch out for that lot. Who knows, they may be tryin another go at finishing up business from the Revolutionary Period.
You know, the only reason the British didn't win that war, was because they decided not to pursue it furthur than they did. I believe if they had concentrated on us, we would have lost. And I've always admired the Brits and Aussies for their guts.
The South has always had a tradition in firearms, going back to the earliest settlements in the 17th Century. The tradition is time honored, and accounts for why Southerners were so easy to train for war...especially shooting skills. A 10 year old could hit a squirrel with a muzzleloader back in those days. That's what they did all the time.
These traditional shooting skills served the United States well during WWI and II...ground, sea, and air. Imo, it would be contrary to our national defense, to allow these skills to be lost. Someone who already knows how to shoot, saves on training expenses in the military.
I agree that some people should not have guns, but then again, some people should. I don't need one right now, but what if I decided to go hunting to get out of the house for awhile and breathe some fresh air...walk in the woods with a rifle and hunt deer. What's so wrong with that? Might do me some good in fact. Being able to do that is the definition of freedom; it's quickly becoming the sport of kings though, as far as the expense involved.
Imo, disarmament in our country is untenable, where the South is a factor. It would precipitate another civil war. The folks living here would not comply with weapon confiscation. It would be out of the question.
Spook:)
Les
-
The old saw, or argument based on need is not the one to use when talking about a capitalistic society. The "need" argument is best based onm a socialistic or communistic society. After all if ownership, excuse me possession, of an item is based upon need then it must be the same for all.
Take for example the following situations.
No one "NEEDS" to have a vehicle larger than say a Yugo or a small mini pickup. Actually only a tradesman or agricultural producer "NEEDS" to have a pickup.
No one "NEEDS" to have a computer more capable than a P3 or an AMD 500 Mhz machine. These can play most games adequately and certainly will handle the chores for school etc wtihout any problems.
No one "NEEDS" to have a house larger than say 1000 Sq feet. That will give them a room or two for sleeping, bathing and food prep and consumption. If you have a larger family well.....
No one "NEEDS" to have more than one or two children anyhow.
No one "NEEDS" to have an internet conection faster than 33.3BPS as that is perfectly adequate for e-mail and "chat".
Get the point? A "needs" based argument is not valid in a society with choices. All of these would have to be enforced by a "paternalistic" government that the people "NEED" to tell them how to live and what they should have.
-
Spook-
Did I say dogs are viscious killers? Did I say all dogs are viscious killers? How is it everything I say gets turned to the extreme?
You have related you made the choice to own a dog instead of a gun (actually, not really a choice, given where you live). I pointed out in some ways dogs are not even as safe as guns. I was even breed-specific in what I said, so I can't see how you extrapolate I ever spoke of all dogs.
I will say this- if you have a dog big enough and aggressive enough to be a threat to intruders, it is big enough and aggressive enough to be a threat to your kids. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Now we have a beagle, and the dog will let us know when people enter the yard, but if the intruder actually gets close to the dog he will be greeted by tail wagging and overtures for attention. This will hardly deter the intruder from continuing if said intruder is determined to get in. One thing though... the dog will make enough noise to alert me so I can have the gun ready, which is the real threat to the intruder... and the thought I just might have a gun will be enough to send most intruders away once the element of surprise is gone.
-
Spook, don't bother man. You are making a really good attempt here but, they just don't want to listen. They are doing their best to ignore or misinterpret what you are saying.
If the Americans want their guns, then so be it. Let them have their guns, and let them kill themselves and each other.
-
If the Americans want their guns, then so be it. Let them have their guns, and let them kill themselves and each other.
Funny thing, the last census indicated a growth in our population. Anyway, make a noble attempt to explain why the gun issue is so important to those not affected by it. You, Beetle, Spook- none of you have made that connection.
Does America want to join the club of the enlightened badly enough to submit to socialistic programs such as voluntary gun recall? Apparently not. It wouldn't matter anyway, 'cause Europe and Canada is going to look down their noses at us anyway. So we'll just have to satisfy ourselves by excerising our somewhat heathen desires to own weapons.
-
Let me rephrase. It appears to me that Americans maintaining their second amendment right is more important to them than whatever deaths may come from the proliferation of firearms in thier country.
I don't look down on the US because of this discision, it's just different then the one made in some other countries.
-
Let me explain further what I mean... what is the drinking age in Germany? France? Younger than ours, I bet... now I personally believe that drinking is a big problem (an alcoholic father will do that to you), I don't begrudge those countries their right to decide for themselves. It doesn't affect me in the least, I just chalk it up to societal differences and let it go. I might say "glad we don't have that here", but why stress beyond that?
Beetle has spent a lot of BBS ink discussing our gun ownership. You could say he wanted to know why it was necessary, but... I think people have pretty much explained it. Add to that he's lived here, and what is left to say?
Germans like their beer, the French eat snails, and 1.5 billion Chinese all get their hair cut like Moe. It just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
-
"It appears to me that Americans maintaining their second amendment right is more important to them than whatever deaths may come from the proliferation of firearms in thier country. "
Yes, that is correct. And it will stay that way until the population of the US at large decides otherwise.
Neither country is right or wrong. The truth is crime in both the USA and in the Commonwealth is very low so neither system seems to be too problematic.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The old saw, or argument based on need is not the one to use when talking about a capitalistic society. The "need" argument is best based onm a socialistic or communistic society. After all if ownership, excuse me possession, of an item is based upon need then it must be the same for all.
Take for example the following situations.
No one "NEEDS" to have a vehicle larger than say a Yugo or a small mini pickup. Actually only a tradesman or agricultural producer "NEEDS" to have a pickup.
No one "NEEDS" to have a computer more capable than a P3 or an AMD 500 Mhz machine. These can play most games adequately and certainly will handle the chores for school etc wtihout any problems.
No one "NEEDS" to have a house larger than say 1000 Sq feet. That will give them a room or two for sleeping, bathing and food prep and consumption. If you have a larger family well.....
No one "NEEDS" to have more than one or two children anyhow.
No one "NEEDS" to have an internet conection faster than 33.3BPS as that is perfectly adequate for e-mail and "chat".
Get the point? A "needs" based argument is not valid in a society with choices. All of these would have to be enforced by a "paternalistic" government that the people "NEED" to tell them how to live and what they should have.
SO we would give poeple whatever they want then...you know like Heroin?
Tronsky
-
OT, but it could be argued that a person addicted to Heroin is incapable of making a responsible judgement as to whether he needs it, AND a heroin junkie is also arguably incapable of controlling his own actions/behaving responsibly.
Red Herring.
J_A_B
-
Perhaps at first, but the suggestion that personal freedoms should include everything you want is ridicolous.
I agreed with your assessment earlier about the social differences we have, but it would seem the message did not sink through for some.
Like labelling a government which places restrictions on it citizens "socialist, or communist" just as ridicolous. What are laws, if not there to protect it's citizens.
Considering we're talking about Australia here, a true democratic society it is hillarious to be called such.
Tronsky
-
"but it would seem the message did not sink through for some. "
Agreed. My thought is some people (on both sides of the fence) have their minds made up and will ignore anything they don't agree with.
"Like labelling a government which places restrictions on it citizens "socialist, or communist" just as ridicolous. "
Also agreed. I don't know the motivations of the Aussi government nor do I pretend to. If I was going to assume anything, then I'd assume that the Australian people as a whole simply won't tolerate the amount of gun crime that Americans will and are willing to go to any length to stop it.
Which, judging by what I see posted on this BBS, seems like a reasonable assumption.
J_A_B
-
I would like to see the poll which states American Citizens prefer higher Crime rates so that the Majority may excercise their right to bear arms.
Im sorry but I do not believe it. I would suggest that the notion of armed citizens is so ingrained upon the population that the very thought of disarming the population is met with derision and resentment and above all suspicion.
That whilst the right exists to bear arms, which is not argued, the idea of it being a justifiable option to ensure the Country does not run roughshod over its citizens is outmoded and irrelevant during these modern times.
Back in the days of olde when the Union and the South went to war against each other it may have been understandable. But as the Democratic World Super Power that the USA now is, doesnt the concept of its citizens taking control sound a little bizarre?
Did you do it to bring an end to the Vietnam war? Did you do it to ensure equal rights for Blacks? Did you do it to stop anything you opposed? No. An individual or Group may have but not the citizenry of a Country. That individual or Group was then named a Criminal element and slapped in irons.
Im not stating that anyones thinking this, as the Military would no doubt quell any rebellion in short order anyway, but to use the Right to bear arms as an excuse for the Right to rise up against the Government of the Country is simply uncomphrensible in todays Western democratic world.
Kieran, a Gun is an inanimate object of steel, plastic and wood. It has no thought processes, no emotion and no ability to learn. The Gun has no instinct and no sense of wrong. It kills as a result of external force generally initiated by Human means. It suffers no remorse and you cannot punish it. It will kill again in exactly the same manner over and over again.
The family dog which grows up with the Family as a pup, learns its place in the order of the house and responds to both kind and cruel treatment. Both of which are generally the result of human influence.
The Dog is an Animal of moderate intelligence and as such it is prone to instinctive behaviour, sometimes good and sometimes bad.
If you have a badass domestic family dog. Blame the owner, previous or present. I have no problems with my dog. Tho he does have a penchant to steal cheesecake. I allow him that indiscretion.
Mav I do not agree with your Needs concept. Being Capitalist or Socialist is inconsequential. Basic Human Need, Desire and Flaw. Greed, Ego and Power. The urge to Dominate and Conquer. The reality for a minority. The Fantasy for a Majority.
How many gun owners have thought about using a gun on another human being? Im better nearly every single one. A passing fancy perhaps or just a little imagination run astray doing no more harm than that. But who hasnt? The first person to say they have never thought about it, im gonna call a Liar. We are all hunters. Genetically born to kill. If not human then another Animal. Very few pass thought life without recognising it within themselves at least once.
It has nothing to do with Nationality, Freedom or Right. It has to do with holding an item in your hand that can snuff out anothers existance in the blink of an eye. Guns make us feel powerful and safe. Whatever the reality might actually be.
I dare say over 90% of your population does not actually need a gun. Its personal choice based on the presumption of power and safety. Hence the right to do so by Charter is convieniant. Its makes for a good excuse. But its not the real reason they possess one.
-
"I would like to see the poll which states American Citizens prefer higher Crime rates so that the Majority may excercise their right to bear arms. "
You just don't get it, do you? I am tempted to feel sorry for someone so closed-minded that he cannot comprehend why we Americans cherish our rights, even when said rights have serious downsides.
We don't "prefer" the crime, we accept it a cost of having a freedom. Our crime rate is only VERY slightly higher than yours, and there is NO way to prove that all of that extra crime is caused by the abundance of firearms although certainly some of it is (anyone care to look up STABBING death statistics? The USA will be higher there too and knives are prefectly legal elsewhere in the world).
Yes it's a freedom that YOU don't see any value of having. That's fine. I can understand YOUR side perfectly well. Why is it so hard for you to understand the American way? Can't you accept that some people might not agree with your line of thinking?
J_A_B
-
Two specific statements which I felt the need to address on their own, hence the separate post:
"I dare say over 90% of your population does not actually need a gun."
So that is a reason to make it illegal for them to own one? I don't NEED my Cadillac. I could get by perfectly fine with a Honda. Does that mean I should have to forfeit my car? My car is bad for the environment and could cause serious injuries to a person driving a smaller vehicle should I hit one. More people die in car accidents than from gun fatalities and a major contributing factor to auto fatalities is large differences in weight. Lots of social downsides. But the costs to society are OUTWEIGHED by the importance of preserving individual freedom--I am free to drive what I like, and if I kill somebody with it then I go to jail. Same with gun ownership.
"Its personal choice based on the presumption of power and safety"
Unless you are psychic and can read the minds of 200 million Americans, this statement is nothing more than unfounded conjecture.
J_A_B
-
Think of a number.... :p
Yes, I get it. I understand what your saying and im asking why.
I dont think any less of a person because they own a gun. Again, ive owned a few myself. Im asking why you believe the risk acceptable.
-
J_A_B
"It appears to me that Americans maintaining their second amendment right is more important to them than whatever deaths may come from the proliferation of firearms in thier country. "
Yes, that is correct. And it will stay that way until the population of the US at large decides otherwise.
Wow, well that's the most honest answer I've ever seen on this debate. Unfortunately, those people who might like to change the status quo cannot speak. :( But I ask you: Is it really worth hanging on to an 18th century anachronism in the name of freedom, but at the expense of thousands of lives each year? Why not legalise heroin & cocaine in that case.
-
Funny thing is, Spook and Beetle, I don't feel unsafe because of guns. I just... don't. I would worry about guns in school if they were allowed, but they aren't. 'Course that doesn't mean guns aren't in some schools, but it isn't the law abiding students who bring them, now is it?
You guys are getting way past the point of making your point and are bordering on attempting to ram your viewpoints down our throats.
Wow, well that's the most honest answer I've ever seen on this debate. Unfortunately, those people who might like to change the status quo cannot speak.
Whose status quo do you want to change? Hell, I don't like the way you decorate the inside of your house... mind getting on that for me? I think it'd look better in shades of eggshell blue, with some bug gut green splashed here and there...
-
Kieran - the inside of my house is still the original magnolia. Many hate it, but I like it, and thus far it has not been responsible for causing any deaths.
The people who would have benefited from change to the status quo regarding gun law are no longer alive to benefit.
-
My, you do have a penchant for exaggeration. This went from curiosity to proselytizing pretty quickly.
-
What point am I supposed to be exaggerating? OK, maybe you're right. Only a few people said they didn't like the magnolia.
-
The fact is, you characterize the wish of Americans to own guns as selfishness in the face of deadly peril to our citizenship. You're not American even if you have been here, it's apparent the experience didn't rub off on you.
You may view me as close-minded about it, which is ok because I view you the same way.
-
Let me repeat the question - What point am I supposed to be exaggerating?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Let me repeat the question - What point am I supposed to be exaggerating?
The whole point. Americans own guns in spite of the inherant dangers.
Do you own a car? What about its inherant dangers? What is most likely to kill someone... a car or a gun? Wouldn't that equate to a gun being easier to keep/use in a safe manner than a car?
There are dangers with owning firearms. Nobody can contest that. There are also dangers with owning knives, razors, lawnmowers, farm equipment, high chairs, rocking chairs and virtually any other household item including the house.
Just one quick question for the perrils of firearms crowd... can someone show a statistic indicating the average age at death from Australia, the U.S. and the U.K. ? Can someone also get it with a breakdown that includes auto accidents, death to cancer, hear attack and etc?
Nah.. nobody really wants to do that when they can inflate specific numbers all on their own.
AKDejaVu
-
AKDejaVu
No need to get all willied. :) I know you guys have run out of puff, but there's no need mess your pants about it. I own 2 cars. There are dangers with owning firearms. Nobody can contest that. There are also dangers with owning knives, razors, lawnmowers, farm equipment, high chairs, rocking chairs and virtually any other household item including the house.
And the reason we have to keep going over it is that all those items of equipment are designed for a useful purpose. A gun is designed to kill. People are fond of citing target practice as a legitimate purpose, but that need not involve large calibre weapons. Besides...
... I don't see thousands of people getting killed by lawnmowers and rocking chairs. But true - thousands of people are killed in vehicle accidents. Here, that total is well down since 1983 because of mandatory wearing of seatbelts, airbags, safer cars.
Never heard of anyone being injured or killed by pumping their own gas - LOL! :p
-
Forgot to say - you're more likely to be killed by a car in Britain - because the vast majority of people have never seen a real gun, never mind owned one. There are lots of cars, but hardly any guns.
When I buy a car, I have in mind a set purpose for it - transport. I know it can be used as a killing device, but that is not what goes through my mind at time of purchase. But someone who buys a gun - maybe the only thing they're thinking about is how well it can kill. Big difference.
Just waiting for Mr. Toad to return, and I will prove that most guns are never used. See you in the ANTI-GUN thread later on.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No need to get all willied. :)
Ummm... I fail to see where this comes from. willied eh? Sorry, but that is not the case. Why.. is that your goal? I know you guys have run out of puff, but there's no need mess your pants about it. I own 2 cars. And the reason we have to keep going over it is that all those items of equipment are designed for a useful purpose. A gun is designed to kill. People are fond of citing target practice as a legitimate purpose, but that need not involve large calibre weapons. Besides...
Ah.. the "useful purpose" argument. Hey... are swords outlawed in the UK too?
Weapons have surved a usefull purpose in the U.S. as recently as 1776... a point most brits are still somewhat sore about.
As long as military forces still have weapons, they will continue to have a usefull purpose... even in the hands of private citizens. For some reason, you don't quite realize this. That's OK. But when Brittain was proliferating the "empire" they sure saw the need for them. I suppose every country that they occupied was better off for not being allowed to have weapons themselves.
The armed of the world will continually take advantage of the disarmed. Brittain has proven that, Europe has proven that... everyone has proven that over history. The U.S. was founded on the principle of not segregating between who is and is not allowed to be armed. The fact that guns already existed meant that they were necessary to defend against them... or those that had them.... I don't see thousands of people getting killed by lawnmowers and rocking chairs. But true - thousands of people are killed in vehicle accidents. Here, that total is well down since 1983 because of mandatory wearing of seatbelts, airbags, safer cars.
I highly supsect you didn't "hear" about these things because you haven't "listened" for them. I also note you left out farm equipment there too.Never heard of anyone being injured or killed by pumping their own gas - LOL! :p
Erm.. I didn't bring this up... but if you haven't heard of anyone getting injured pumping gass then I suppose you are just plain obtuse. Nope... no fuel splashing in eyes... no issues with fuel vapors... no real reason they put up "no smoking" signs at gas stations. Nah... no real danger inherant to handling a low flashpoint chemistry on a regular basis.
Besides... I've never heard of safety being an issue in regards to any ballot measures on the subject. Its always about cost. But then, I didn't really expect you to have any actuall knowledge on the subject... much like the rest of your posts.
AKDejaVu
-
LOL Deja Vu! You are willied! :D
-
I think you greatly exaggerate the peril to our citizenry. I think far more people are killed every year in America by cars than by firearms. I think the real peril of firearms comes from people that possess the weapons who are using them to forward an illegal agenda, and absent the firearms would use other means to enforce their desires.
What I can't think of is why you are carrying on as if you have a personal stake in the whole deal. And, if you happened to see any billboards in America that stated "Great Britain: send more nannies, please!" they were in error. :D
-
wait a minute... No one has yet proved that getting rid of firearms completely in the U.S. would lower the homicide rate in the least. even IF it were possible to magicly rid the country of firearms. firearms accidents would of course be elliminated but probly 90% of the people invbolved in firearms accidents are and accident waiting to happen in any case... and firearms accidents are very small and going down every year.
No one has proved that we would be safer without guns. In fact... the oppossite has been proven so far as I can see.. the states with the most armed citezens have the least crime.
spook is simply a preachy windbag justifying his lameo lack of courage and inability to absorb real data by sputing an endless and meaningless wall o words that can all be boiled down to (and I paraprase several thousand words)"I don't know anything about the subject but since I feel the way I do I must be right and don't you dare go spouting off facts at me".
beetle simply feels that if it isn't british it is probly wrong. He wants to 'help" us be more british. He is simply misguided and patriotic. He lives in a country where his 'bobbies" are now going around in body armor with Mp5 machine guns. and he still doesn't get it. Why do they need to defend themselves? Certainly some danger exixts.... no doubt it will grow.
Not one person has refuted effectively the fact that firearms are a deterent to every type of tyranny. This makes them worth the price of addmission to most but... above that... Killings are prevented using firearms. More crime is stopped with firearms than is commited. Firearms give the weak and the infirm a fighting chance. I would say that simply because the "need" is not imediate does not mean that it is never possible. Let each decide on it for themselves.
Finally.... yeah... no need for suv's or hot rods or motorcycles or old cars or ultralight's or whatever.... in the U.S. we have a lot of freedom of choice.... A lot of variety... It isn't allways good for us but.... we prefer it. In england I was struck by..... sameness... everythign and everywhere was sameness.. compared to here there simply wasn't a lot of choice in anything except maybe "pubs". I don't want that for here.
lazs
-
Kieran - look further up the thread to where I said about cars having a separate purpose - transport, whereas guns are designed to kill.
Lazs - Mr. Toad made a very good point a few days ago. Given that US gun homcides are 50 times as numerous (per 100,000 pop.) as they are here, homicides by other means are less in such a way that overall homicides in the US are nowhere near 50 times higher than they are here. So yes, it would seem that murderers here do indeed resort to other instruments of homicide in the absence of guns. A hand gun just makes it so much easier. You can shoot someone through a door, or a wall in the case of your 44 Magnum. With a shrap implement, you can't. And you have to get very close. And because of handguns, the overall US homicide rate is about 5 times what it is here.
You almost made a good point in your first paragraph: If guns were elminated, there would be no firearms homicides! I know we can't achieve that, for a number of reasons. And it's highly possible that various governments have banned guns because they don't want to see their country become like America with regard to gun homicides.
The weak and infirm probably could not hold a gun steady to get off a good shot. Here, the weak and infirm (in my village - and therefore much of England, given the "sameness":p) have security in that no-one around here has a gun.
Heckler & Koch MP5? Is that what our airport bobbies have? Hehe Lazs - I have said all along that the Police should be given all necessary means to carry out their duties. It's the privately owned weapons that worry me - and not in the hands of guys like you. I know you're not a racist, and besides, you're a cat lover. So you should be safe enough. :D No, it's not you guys having guns that worries me so much as Joe avacado with an IQ of 25 having one. By all means, arm the Police. Gawd, have we been arguing all this time under false pretences? The trouble is, how do your gun licensing authorities distinguish between a responsible owner and a avacado? Just look at GTO's driving thread. GTO does a safe 50 in rain, but with other people doing 70-80 nose to tail. Dangerous enough, but a similar cavalier attitude with guns has potentially disastrous consequences.
Why do you think there's a liquor store or a gun store on every corner in this neighborhood? Cos they want us to kill ourselves, that's why.
[/COLOR] - Furious Styles, played by Larry Fishburne in "Boyz n the Hood".[/size]
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not one person has refuted effectively the fact that firearms are a deterent to every type of tyranny.
[/b]
Maybe in the 18th century, but since then an armed militia (citizens with guns) have a life expectancy fully comparable to stillborn sheep if in a combat situation against a regular army force.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Maybe in the 18th century, but since then an armed militia (citizens with guns) have a life expectancy fully comparable to stillborn sheep if in a combat situation against a regular army force. [/B]
The Vietnamese and Afghani would debate this to some extent... as would the Georgians.
Armed citizens have proven themselves to be the biggest obstacle for any invading force.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
The Vietnamese and Afghani would debate this to some extent... as would the Georgians.
Armed citizens have proven themselves to be the biggest obstacle for any invading force.
AKDejaVu
ah yes...so Deja, the Vietnamese and Afghani...tell me, did they have any larger weapons than handguns?
-
"Im asking why you believe the risk acceptable."
Because, in real terms, it's a very small risk that's only slightly higher than the risk of living in your country. Look at gun-related deaths compared to traffic accidents sometime. Gun violence simply isn't a big problem outside a few large urban areas, so there's no need to completely remove them from society.
Where I live, more people get struck by lightning on a yearly basis than get killed by guns. If you think that the USA is like a war zone with hundreds of people being killed by the gun-wielding hordes on a daily basis, then you're badly mistaken.
The only places where gun violence is a bad problem is in certain select urban areas, and in this case banning guns would do nothing to help the problem since gangs and criminals don't tend to obey the laws anyway and our huge land borders make it easy to smuggle stuff in.
So, to sum it up, we as a nation find the risk acceptable because it's a tiny risk.
"Is it really worth hanging on to an 18th century anachronism in the name of freedom, but at the expense of thousands of lives each year? "
Our 2nd amendment is no more an anachronism than freedom of speech or due process is. It may no longer have the importance it once had, but firearms are still a very real, relevant issue in today's world. The parts of the Constitution that really are anachronisms have been changed/removed (things like only permitting white men to vote, not being able to directly elect Senators, stuff like that is all gone). Our system of government is not rigid; it changes with the times.
As for why we can accept a certain number of unfortunate tradegies....I think I answered that above. In real terms the risk is very very small.
"And because of handguns, the overall US homicide rate is about 5 times what it is here. "
While this is technically accurate, it also makes the problem seem worse than it really is--remember than in BOTH countries the homicide rate is but a small fraction of 1%. We both live in generally safe countries, and we're both far more likely to die in a traffic accident than become a victim of gun violence. It's just not the problem you make it out to be.
Rather than a blanket ban for the entire country (a ban that the criminals could and would easily bypass), wouldn't it be better to try to deal with the guns in the areas where they really ARE a big problem?
J_A_B
-
Hey J_A_B - excellent post! I'm sorry you didn't join in sooner. We could have had this wrapped up last week!
OK, just a few things...Where I live, more people get struck by lightning on a yearly basis than get killed by guns. If you think that the USA is like a war zone with hundreds of people being killed by the gun-wielding hordes on a daily basis, then you're badly mistaken.
No, never thought it was a war zone - absolutely not, which is why I was surprised at all the folks needing (or at least wanting) guns. I never felt that need, and when I was there the handgun homicides alone we into five figures. Where I live, more people get struck by lightning on a yearly basis than get killed by guns.
Well, it's beginning to look like there are some very bad pockets of gun homicide. I always knew that the white middle class areas were safe, so for all those thousands of gun deaths each year, are you saying that the vast majority occur in ghettos? Certainly, Washington DC has an enormously high homicide rate. But I don't see more privately owned guns solving it. Which is what I meant when I said, in the anti-gun thread Crime hotspot in a particular troublesome area of Los Angeles? Perceived solution: Arm all Californians, from Crescent City to San Diego. Better solution: Understand the problems involved, and give law enforcement the resources they need to apply their expertise to contain the problem in the areas where it exists.
Yes, allow law enforcement to tackle the problems in the areas where it exists.
Just had an email from an American friend in VT. This is what he said... Hi, Alan. Good to hear from you.
I used to, a long time ago, keep a Ruger 22 caliber pistol in the house for protection. I got rid of in about 20 years ago.
The reason is that most people who keep a gun for protection end up shooting someone they didn't want to or end up having the gun used against them by the perpetrator.
I'm just not trained to handle a weapon in a confrontational situation. I don't feel I need to be either. At least not yet.
Based on this, keeping the pistol around was more of a danger to me and my family than a protection. When my son went off the deep end there for a few years, I was really glad I had nothing like that around the house.
I now have a 12 gauge shot gun for hunting. I hope to be able to bag a couple geese this fall and see if I like the flavor of wild game. If I end up not liking it, then I will probably sell the gun as a waste of money to have around. I've had it for a year and never even loaded a shell into it.
We would love to see you if you get a chance to come over. Hopefully, Sadam will disarm and not force a war and you can travel next year.
From what I've read about various analysts statements about the terms of the resolution, it seems unlikely he will comply. It seems that President Bush really wants to go in and remove Sadam, in any case.
Scary times.
-
It's the privately owned weapons that worry me
Why?
You
don't
live
here.
Other than the fact you continue to ignore my point, my calls to clarify your specific concern for us as it relates to you, and your single-minded pursuit to only acknowledge evidence that supports your viewpoint, I'd say you're doing well.
You don't understand Americans- you've made that point abundantly clear. Ditto your understanding of America in general. I don't care what cars are designed for, guns, or the molding on my landscaping. It's my right to choose whether or not I own any of them, and it is NOT my right to tell my neighbors whether or not THEY should own them.
I never said I NEED guns. It is enough I want them, or at least the right to get one if I should NEED one. Situations change, you see, and I might find myself in the condition of needing one.
So your friend in Vermont has a son who is a nut? This makes your case for handguns being dangerous? Try harder... much harder. Even if your friend's son goes tower sniper, he isn't going to get more than a dozen or so before he is taken out. Ask Lazs to come up with rebutting stories of people that saved their lives by having a gun handy. Bet he can come up with more than you can.
Damn, the more you type, the more you sound like Barbara Streisand.
-
hortlund... tyranny is thugs doing strongarm crime also.
beetle.. without guns it is arguable that the homicide rate would increase given the fact that over a million crimes a year are stopped with firearms in the states. The deterent effect cannot be downplayed either... say it is a wash.. i don't care... say it would be slightly better without guns? I find that hard to believe in light of the data that proves that states with more guns have less crime. but... even if so... a few more dead thugs a year doesn't bother me in the least.
Infirm and old unable to use a firearm? LOL... you really don't know much about guns do you? My 21 year old daughter can empty my custom 4" ruger in 44 mag... double action shooting in abourt 3 sec and put all the rounds into the K5 zone at 15 feet no problem. she is 5'3" and about 120 lbs. My 97 year old grandfather can empty his 45 into a K5 at twice that distance. Neither of them would be much of a fight for a 200 lb attacker tho without the firearm.
wake up... it's not just at airports that your cops are armed and they are armed cause it's getting ugly out there. guns don't increase homicides so much as crime increases the need for guns. besides... like I said... edged weapons give me the creeps.
Who cares how often or even if a person ever uses a firearm... It is his choice. How often does a person really use a seat belt or an airbag? I would say that firearms have saved more lives than airbags.
disarm yourself if you wish. Chances are.... you may never live long enough to regret it. I hope so. I have used my guns. i have no idea how the situation would have turned out otherwise. Don't even really care.
Now why don't you run along... read the book I suggested and then when you come back... get onto something new... Maybe you can show the germans on the board how to save lives by putting a speed limit on the autobaun.
lazs
-
LOL Beatle!
You've finally broken down to quoting your "friend".
LOL!
You could have made something better than that up. At least I hope that's made up... if not you have a friend that enjoys lieing to you.
AKDejaVu
-
kieran... hundreds.... no thousands of stories that are documented are availabe for anyone to read in various publications. The American Rifleman (admittedly a heinous pro gun NRA 666 mag") has a dozen or so every month and they are all indisputable and/or easily checked. Most of the intended victims would have had no chance of survival without the firearm... most of their attackers were either insand or had long records or were hard core drug addicts. Win win.... a good person was left alive and a bad person no longer walks among us.
again... I would suggest that anyone who is interested in the hard undiputed data read john lotts "more guns less crime" the second edition is in paperback and new data has been compiled (since '97) that backs up the old data. Regardless of what spook says it is not an NRA publication and was written by an otherwise (by changing rapidly I would guess) liberal professor on a grant from the john olin foundation (not relation to the firearms olin). The book has been attacked by every pro gun control outfit in the U.S. and they have all been humiliated (much as bettle and spook have). read it yourselves. read any book that disputes it... Oh wait... there are no scholastic works with data that dispute it... nevermind... What you say? handgun control inc or the center for gun violence policy has not data to back them up? well.... no.... they have lots of data but every time even a curspory glance is give to it..... it is found to be an outright fabrication.
lazs
funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."
-
Ok Beetle, the Cavalry has arrived :) Looks like the Gun nuts have you surrounded. :D
Firstly..Deja.
It is a poor arguement my friend that uses an Automobile as an analogy of a firearm. Your "Mo'tah" as my Brits friends might call it, is not designed to kill. It is a method of transportation. A gun is an implement designed to kill. Nothing more, nothing less. Im suprised you didnt throw in a sharpened graphite pencil and a pair of neck strangling shoelaces while you were at it.
At least Beetles friend has the guts to admit to something outside the apparent "norm" for his own personal reasons. He doesnt seem to be hiding behind a weapon he may never need.
Also, Stats are very boring to both read and find.
With the most powerful Military Force in the world, how many of you Civvies are going to defend the shoreline from the invading Cubans and Iraqi boat people? I would somehow think that any invading Force would have the civilian population armed or not down on the bottom of their list of concerns when it came to taking on the US of A.
Laz.
Dear Laz, you must be getting tired as your making it almost to easy for me. "Noone had proved we will be safer without Guns"
Noone has to prove it Laz. It kinda makes sense on its own.
You then launch into the attack on Beetle using the British Bobby armed with Mp5's. The Brits were fighting terror while you guys were arming their people and mingling with them and shouting them beers on St Pats day. You speak of the War of Terror since 9/11. Whereas the Brits have been fighting it domestically since long before you were born. With an enemy that harboured itself inside your borders. With weapons that were funded by your people. What right have you as a relative Baby to large scale Terrorism to criticise the Britswhen it comes to their "Police Force" carrying Mp5's.
The fact is that most Brit Police remain unarmed. They utilise Tactical units and Response Groups the same way your Country does with Swat and all the other varieties of the same. I imagine your armed Swat teams are a damn sight busier on the Domestic front than Beetles.
The arguement is being used that if Guns are such a problem what about knives. Do we remove knives from everyone?
We've have also been doing that. At least in the sense of restricting their legal ability to carry one in a public place. It is an offence in this part of the Country at any rate to carry a Knife in your possession, in a public place, without lawful excuse. Something that just makes plain common sense. A bit like Firearm reduction policies.
You also appear to be using alternative objects such as life saving airbags in your defence of life taking firearms. Where does that rationale come from? This book you keep babbling about?
As for the Autobahn. Start a new thread. Ill bet we can make that go to a 100+ also.
J_A_B and Leslie are the only ones seemingly making sense on yourside of the arguement. Laz, get one of them to write a book and ask us to read it.
:p
-
Kieran -
You don't understand Americans- you've made that point abundantly clear. Ditto your understanding of America in general.
Well, erm, I lived and worked there on two separate occasions for a total of about 3 years. I visit often and have a lot of friends there. Once had my life saved in an American hospital. It's like a second home. I've been to more places than most Americans. In fact this year will be the first calendar year since 1977 that I haven't been to the US.
Yes, the homicides appall me, just as I was appalled by Sept 11th 2001. Did you think that the rest of the world didn't give a stuff that day because we don't live there? But you're right, I don't live there.
AKdejavu - do pay attention! That's about the 4th friend I've quoted! I was interested to hear in first hand from a few people. So that's 1 from NY, one from VT, one from CA - sorry, only 3. Guess all my friends are like Ned Flanders?
-
What right have you as a relative Baby to large scale Terrorism to criticise the Britswhen it comes to their "Police Force" carrying Mp5's.
I'd wager about the same right as an Aussie or a Brit to come here and criticize our second amendment right to bear arms.
Sucks when it is thrown back atcha, doesn't it?
-
Beetle-
I simply maintain what I have said- your experience in America has failed to impress upon you what personal freedom means, and the independence with which most choose to live their lives. Granted, I live in a rural area and my step-dad was a gun dealer, but I have a pretty good feeling I understand America better than you do. Of course you will disagree because you have vacationed over a greater portion of it than I might have, but whutevah.
-
The reason is that most people who keep a gun for protection end up shooting someone they didn't want to or end up having the gun used against them by the perpetrator.
This is what your "friend" said beetle.
It seriously looks like something off of a "Letters from 'friends' to help your cause in a gun argument" web site. I don't know a single gun owner that would say this, nor has had this happen. Your friend is either made up, lieing to you or completely clueless.
And Spook.. I can see you get only what you want out of that "letter". I respect you for keeping the blinders on through thick and thin... no matter how deep it piles up.
AKDejaVu
-
AKDEjaVu. You can believe what you want. I know that the email was genuine. You just can't take the old buggery-suet treatment to your profile of a gun owner's mindset. You think you know everything and you don't. And the correct spelling is "lying". Thought you of all people would know that.
Gotta hit the sack now, so...
Toodle-Pip! ;)
-
"Well, it's beginning to look like there are some very bad pockets of gun homicide. I always knew that the white middle class areas were safe, so for all those thousands of gun deaths each year, are you saying that the vast majority occur in ghettos? "
I think this is a self-evident fact. Yes the vast majority of homicies occur in urban areas, particularly poor urban areas. That's hardly a shock to anyone. In my mind this means that gun ownership--and restrictions upon it--should be a local issue, not a national issue. Washington DC has a bad homicide rate, but that doesn't mean that guns here in Rittman, Ohio should be banned (the only homicide here in the last 5 years involved a baseball bat and I think dang near everyone in the town owns some sort of gun). Fix the problem where there IS a problem!
"But I don't see more privately owned guns solving it. Which is what I meant when I said, in the anti-gun thread "
If that's what you said at first, then I'm inclined to agree (I did not read the first half of this thread). A gun is almost useless in crime prevention...it can be used for protection, but by the time you need to use a gun to protect yourself than a crime has already been attempted/committed. At the same time though, a wholesale banning of guns wouldn't reduce gun crime by any measurable means--in fact, in the urban areas where most gun crime takes place, a good portion of the guns being used in those crimes are ALREADY illegally obtained! So banning what is already illegal isn't going to do much :)
We've been working on the problem of urban violence for 40 years now....in the last decade crime has generally decreased, particularly in cities like New York which made an active effort to increase police presence and do a better job of enforcing existing laws.
J_A_B
-
Forget about guns. In the UK, lockblade pocket knives are illegal to carry around.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Ok Beetle, the Cavalry has arrived :) Looks like the Gun nuts have you surrounded. :D
Firstly..Deja.
It is a poor arguement my friend that uses an Automobile as an analogy of a firearm. Your "Mo'tah" as my Brits friends might call it, is not designed to kill. It is a method of transportation. A gun is an implement designed to kill. Nothing more, nothing less. Im suprised you didnt throw in a sharpened graphite pencil and a pair of neck strangling shoelaces while you were at it.
Ah.. then going to the "guns are only designed to kill" argument.
I'll ask this question one more time spook... why do you carry a gun? Is it only to kill? Is it possible that the mere presence of a gun serves a purpose and has an effect? Surely you must concede this point. I've used a gun numerous times... I haven't killed anyone yet.
Besides... what has greater killing potential... I'm not talking about what kills more... simply what would be a better killer? A car or a gun? Even more people commit murder using a car than a gun... that's even ignoring the accidents. I personally knew one person that was murdered by someone driving a vehicle, my wife knew one other. One was run off the road and the other was ran over while changing a tire (on the curb side.. someone drove around his car). Neither of us know anyone that was murdered with a gun.
AKDejaVu
-
Deja. firstly, may I say I respect you also for giving me the material to keep my blinders on. :p
To answer your legitimate question.
why do you carry a gun? Is it only to kill? Is it possible that the mere presence of a gun serves a purpose and has an effect? Surely you must concede this point.
I carry a gun because I have a duty to protect life and property as encumbent upon me by Occupation. And yes. At times, the firearm on my hip does exactly as you state. Its mere presence quells further arguement. Only after a certain point.
Heres the bit you are waiting for...... Yes. I concede that point.
However, :p
Off duty, I consider myself like everyone else. Share the same problems, bills, annoying neighbours, the idiot driving on the road alongside me etc. I do not jump into "RoboCop" mode, don my firearm and become the protector of the innocent. I simply wait my turn.
One thing ive learnt in life is that the adage, "What goes around, comes around" often applys.
At home, if theres an idiot out in the street, kicking cans, smashing letterbox's etc. Like anyone else, I call the boys in Blue.
No Laz, it has nothing to do with fear. Im just as tempted to go pushing in faces with these morons as anyone else and realise those situations that can blow up and have me doing so, which for a Police Officer, causes problems later on.
Likewise, I do not keep a gun at home to protect myself without good reason. If I were to live in the inner city where Crime is ever present on my doorstep then YES. I'd keep a gun. Just like any of you and you would recieve no criticism or questions from me.
As I do not live in the Inner City and Crime is not beating down the door of my house, then I have no need for a gun. Which is why im debating your need.
Now the topic has been subverted many times in this thread about Sporting shooters. Noone is saying, a legitimate sporting shooter cannot own a gun. They still do here.
The debate as I understand it and the point of my questioning refers only to Joe Citizen living in the Burbs without a crack house on the corner. I am not implying that the US of A is full of crack heads and violent people. Hence my part in the debate. I do not believe the majority of your countrymen require a firearm.
Should I use that Firearm on duty, I shall, as your countrymen do, shoot to stop the threat. Thats the legal answer. I will not however be shooting at arms and legs, like a Cowboy from an ol'd movie. I shall be shooting at the Centre of Mass. In anyones language, thats gonna be a kill shot. I personally hope, that never has to happen.
And laz, that doesnt make me weak. It probably takes a courage beyond your comprehension and one I wont bother to explain.
Re, vehicles in the use of Murder.
It may be that your legislation (of which I am not familiar) puts many catergories such as Drunk driving in the Murder bracket.
Here, we would charge with Manslaughter unless there is a Deliberate intentional Act to kill with a Motorvehicle.
Im confident tho, whatever the reason behind your Motor Vehicle arguement that you and the wife are unfortunate in knowing those victims and that it is not a prevalent offence consistant with the numbers of Firearm incidents. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
-
"The debate as I understand it and the point of my questioning refers only to Joe Citizen living in the Burbs without a crack house on the corner. I am not implying that the US of A is full of crack heads and violent people. Hence my part in the debate. I do not believe the majority of your countrymen require a firearm. "
I'd agree that those living in safe areas probably don't need to own a gun for self-defence. But what about other reasons?
What about game hunting? Or chasing away and/or killing vermin? Suppose "Joe Citizen" simply likes going out back and plinking away at cans or a tree stump? Or if firearms are a hobby? Maybe "Joe" just likes fiddling around in his basement trying out different loads for his .45.
Or even all of the above?
For you, in your country, guns are seen as instruments of death. Some people in the USA would agree with that (mostly people living in cities with a gun-crime problem). However, for a lot of people OUTSIDE of those areas, guns are nothing more than objects used for hobbies and recreation, no more sinister than a golf club or baseball bat or sports car (and you're far more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a gun accident).
I can understand COMPLETELY why limitations on weapons in certain areas might be important; but a blanket banning over the entire country would be essentially "throwing the baby out with the bath water"--it'd do the trick too, but it's a tad bit extreme :)
J_A_B
-
Guns serve as a deterent simply by their presence or the possibility of their presence. A deterent for what is up for debate... but its quite simply what was intended by our constition. A deterent.
As for homocide with cars... I was refering to the act of premeditation. Intentionally running over someone on a rural road... or intentionally running someone off of the road. Really... it is more of a threat than handguns. But you have to be psychotic to do something like that (as most would agree). More children are killed by vehicles while playing than by handguns... by a long shot... and that would be a per car /per handgun stat that would hold up quite well. I've come much closer to hitting kids with my car than my gun. Cars driven irresponsibly kill many more people than guns.
So irresponsibility, psychotic behavior and childhood neglegence (parental and child) cause the loss of life on a grand scale when talking about cars. But its OK because everyone needs cars.
Guns on the otherhand, don't have a need? That's where I disagree. Deterence and security are not the same as killing people. Guns are not only intended to kill people. Put a gun in the hands of a psycho, someone that's irresponsible or children and guess what... you run into the same issues as you do with anything capable of destruction.
With guns, much like with cars, you teach children to respect them and hope they'll grow up to be responsible with them... and pray to God that psychos just stay the hell away from them.
AKDejaVu
-
J_A_B - another good post, and I have a couple of comments.
About those "other uses" - chasing away vermin? I've never had a vermin problem, but wouldn't calling in an exterminator be a better solution than firearms? After all, mice/rats live in areas which you can't get at. For every one you can see, there might be 50 that you can't see.
About target shooting etc. In another thread, Mr. Toad said there were about 220 million guns in the US. How many of these are handguns and how many belong to private citizens? I can only hazard a guess. But let's use a round figure and say 50 million. For target practice, would it be fair to say that each gun is fired 500 times a year for target practice? That's less than 10 rounds a week. (I suggest that figure as I know that Lazs squeezes off about 2000-3000 a year, but he's an enthusiast) Well that would mean that about 800 rounds are being fired off every second of every day 24x7! Given that most target shooters would probably want to contemplate the results of a shot and to allow time for reloading, is it fair to say that guys on the range might fire on average one shot per 15 seconds? Well that must mean that there are 12,000 peeps doing target practice at the range around the clock. I don't suppose anyone would want to spend 24 hours at the range. 2 hours seems more reasonable. So that means 144,000 people, attending the firing range for 2 hours a day, every day - or something like 2500-3000 people from every state every day, firing off 400-500 rounds every session -as much ammo in a session as Lazs goes through in three months!
That scenario is patently ridiculous. What is wrong with it? Maybe I was being conservative with the 50 million privately owned handguns. Perhaps it's 100 million? In which case there would need to be twice as many people. We need to get data on ammunition sales and firing range membership to make sense of it.
But I would say that it points to one thing: Most handguns are bought, stored and forgotten or, to put it another way, are not needed.
-
Believe it or not, I do understand what your saying about Deterence and Security. I even agree to a point. Only an idiot goes up against someone armed with a gun. Unless the idiot also has a gun.
Reduce firearms. Make their availability to the general public harder to obtain and the Crims (perps) you fear so much will be for the most part hindered. Sure if you have enough money and the proper fence (seller/reciever of stolen or illegal goods) then anyone can still get one. The market determines the price which goes up as availability goes down. The upper echelon Crims, organised Crime gangs are for the most part not likely to bother you.
Most of your common garden variety crims tho dont have much money. With a $100+ a day habit, their money is spent trying to score. Druggies are the most common criminal trying to get in your window at night. Particularly in the Burbs. Their in your house to get your wallet, the wifes handbag or knock off your video machine. They carry a gun because they anticipate you have one. Most of them are gutless whiney SOB when cornered and will set up exit points prior to commiting the Burg. (The smarter ones anyway) Those cornered with no place to go, will grab whatever they can get their hands on. If you have a weapon on the premises and they searched prior to your waking up, then thats what their bound to go for. Desperate people doing desperate deeds.
Gun reduction wont stop every one of them getting a gun, but it will stop most of them. (Talking a looong way down the track if ever Gun reduction policy was implemented in the USA.)
Your people will feel safer due to less violent Crime (not crime in general as there are no answers to that) The need to defend themselves from societal scum will disapate and thats how the culture changes.
If your shooting vermin on a property with authorisation from the owner and a proper Gun licence, or plinking at tin cans with the same, then theres no problem. If your shooting Vermin in your backyard, your hardly in control of your weapon. Richochet and ammo type would play a large part in the death of the neighbours kid whilst your squirrel squeaks and chatters at your from the tree branch.
As stated, Proper sporting shooters, arent effected. They can still enjoy their sport. Farmers get special dispensation also to control vermin and stock.
The only ones effected by Gun Buy back or reduction are those that dont need firearms in the first place.
Vehicles again :) I agree there are incidents where a pre-meditated deadly assault/Murder has occurred. Whilst Car accidents may be in the majority, Murder by vehicle would be a minority. Vehicle assaults are more likely to occur in Domestic situations, Neighbourhood disputes and incidents of Road Rage.
Aside from Domestics and some incidents of Road Rage, particularly with pedestrian or cyclist involvement, the neighbourhood disputes would be far more likely to involve pre-meditated assault rather than murder. Killing someone with a gun is far easier than trying to run them over.
-
beetle.. the figures are between 76 and 86 millon firearms in the U.S.
spook... i still don't think you understand deterance. you seem to be unable to understand hard data and... at the same time... how people "feel" about something. Some hard data on "deterance" in the uk and aus... about 50% of all burglaries are "hot"... the people are home. In the U.S. it is 13% Now... since, as you claim, all people are the same then why would our burglars be more reluctant to enter a home that may be occupied? well..
surveys of felony prisoners in 10 state correctional ins. showed that 56% would not attack a person they believed might be armed.. in fact, prisoners in states with the most civilian gun ownership were the most frightened of being shot.
15 surveys including los angeles times and gallup show that handguns are used by citizens to prevent crime 760,000 per year and that all firearms used by citizens to prevent crime may be as high as 3.6 million times a year.
spook I know that these are mere facts and that they can't hold a candle to what you "Know" instinctively. Like I said before. you might be ok with your plan to simply call the cops if you are ever in danger... heck... chances are that you will never be in the situation at home or on the street anyway... your just taking a chance... much as the person who doesn't wear a seatbelt. askintg others to not wear one (for whatever reason) is unconsionable and taking away their right is tantamount to murder.
States with more guns have less crime. you can't deny it (tho you have tried your level best to ignore it).
Cars.... well... an suv hits a small car and the person in the small car dies. we could prevent a lot of deaths by making only one kind of car perhaps. make everyone drive that. What would be the hardship? and it would save far more lives than the total and magical removal of all firearms from the face of the earth in the hands of citizens (if that were possible).
History.... does anyone recall britan begging for firearms from the U.S. in order to arm ordinary citizens agains an across the channel attack? didn't the british have an "army" to protect them? Does anyone recall why we dropped Atomic bombs on japan? Last I heard we were afraid of "over a million casualties" from armed japanesse citizens. Japanesse leaders feared attacking the west coast of America because of it's armed citizens. even today... the first thing a warlord or military dictatorship does is disarm it's subjects... did not the UK disarm it's subjects? perhjaps they are different and should be trusted... don't see how anything can go wrong... the brits have a long history of treating their unarmed subjects fairly.
beetle... what possible differenc does it make if a person buys a firearm and then uses it (for a variety of reasons) or simply keeps it handy and never fires it his entire life.. it is up to him and as data proves.... the simple fact of him having it reduces crime for everyone else deterence wise.
jab...disagree that there are areas that need more gun control. I feel that all areas benifiet from more concealed carry handguns and from private ownership. Every area, urban or otherwise that issues more concealed carry permits enjoys a drop in crime.d but that the students didn't know which 10%. You trust teachers to cover your childs body with his own when the shootoing starts but you don't trust him to shoot back?
And what is the cost to haveing more concealed carry people out there? No murders or gun crimes commited by cc people but... a national survey by a police publication showed that 76% of all police officers felt that all trained, responsible adults should be able to obtain a concealed carry permit (law enforcement technology)
A mail in survey (1996, conducted by the national ass. of cheifs of police) the 15,000 chiefs and sherrifs that responded agreed 93% that law abiding citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self defense. No area was specified and none left out. Police officers lives are saved by citizens with firearms..
so... do we belive the data or do we believe in the "gut feelings" of our friend down under? I say that we are indeed fortunate that we don't have to listen to him and that we haven't lost our rights just yet. I know that if I was hiding under the table at a resteraunt while some crazy methodicly searched out and executed fellow diners... I would thank god if someone there had ignored or aussie friends advice.
lazs
-
Ok Laz, enough of your Rambling. Just for that Im gonna hop on a plane. come over there and launch my Campaign for President of the United States.
....well maybe after breakfast.
Ill respond after when I have time. Im a busy man. All this intuitive thinking and all.
-
"jab...disagree that there are areas that need more gun control."
Gun control doesn't have to = total banning. I am generally against banning weapons because the people who WANT them for illicit purposes (like gangs) will get simply get contraband/smuggled weapons like they already do, at least in the cities where crime is worst. Our borders are simply too "leaky" to stop the flow of illegal weapons. But SOMETHING needs to be done to clean up the inner cities....I might not feel a whole lot of pity for one thug who gets killed by another thug (which is what most gun crime is), but it's still be a better country if that didn't happen so much.
Beet1e..."vermin" doesn't so much mean suburban squirrels and such (indeed most towns have ordnances about discharging weapons in city limits), it is more along the lines of farmers and such who use a rifle or shotgun to chase away stuff that eats their crops. Yeah they could call an exterminator or resort to poison, but guess which method is cheaper and/or safer :)
Spook.....
You claim that reduction of guns would have the ffect of reducing overall crime levels. That may or mat not be accurate. Certainly arguments can be made both ways, but let'snot get distracted. Let's assume for a minute that you're right.
We as a nation would be giving up a freedom (the right to own a weapon for whatever reason we wish) for a slight reduction in crime....maybe our homicide rate might decline from .007% to .004%or so...maybe. Or it might not.
That's an almost imperceptible difference on a national level, especially for something that only "might" happen. To people not directly affected by daily gun violence, it just doesn't seem worth it. Once you give up a freedom you aren't likely to get it back, and we Americans are very protective of our freedoms.
Remember that gun violence is NOT a problem everywhere....it is largely cenetered in select areas. Why then go to the trouble of banning/restricting guns nationwide, when such a measure is completely unnecessary? Given the downsides (like reduced freedom, financial cost, etc), what is the BENEFIT of banning/heavily restricting weapons in areas where they're not a problem?
What I get from those of you who live in countries where weapons are generally illegal is you for the most part seem almost "afraid" of guns. Whereas I look at a rifle no differently than I look at a baseball bat (another piece of equipment which is often used in beatings and murders). While your feelings are prefectly fine, try to remember that for a lot of us a rifle just doesn't have that sinister connotation...it's just a thing.
J_A_B
-
J_A_B - the sum total of my firearms experience has been to hand hold an unloaded .357 Magnum and pull the trigger. The thing I noticed right away was that whereas with toy guns (LOL!) you would feel the vibration as the hammer fell, with the Magnum the hammer just went "plink" - almost no sensation at all. I didn't notice any safety catch or switch on this gun. I reloaded it and asked the cop who was showing it to me if it was ready to fire and he said it was, so rather than risk a handling accident passing it back to him, I lay the gun on the table, pointing away, and let him pick it up. Beet1e's firearms experience - in one paragraph! lol
Agreed - the gun crime is concentrated in ghetto areas, and whereas Britain is not free from ghetto areas or ghetto crime, because there's never been a proliferation of privately owned firearms, the criminals find it harder to get them too. Clearly a criminal would be banned from owning a gun (?). So I was wondering why the criminals find it so easy to acquire guns in the US. Would it be fair to say that privately owned guns get stolen, or are sold to someone who sees the chance to make a buck and sells on to an unscrupulous party? Because we've never had many guns here, there are relatively few to steal so fewer of them get into the wrong hands.
I had a few beers with a friend of mine in the village last week - he used to have a lawn mower shop until he retired. Got his start in life serving in the Royal Navy and has seen the world. I was telling him about this gun debate and because he knows more people in the village because of the business he did over 30 years or so, I asked him if he knew anyone with a gun. This village has about 6,000 people so it's really a small town. He didn't know anyone who had a gun of any kind.
-
Your friend sounds like he lives in a great place to own a business then Beetle.
J_A_B, Its not fear of firearms that concerns us I dont think, as some of the people who are in possession of them. We all have leaky borders. Australia's northern coastline despite millions of dollars invested in Coastal Patrol craft land and air is simply to vast and to daunting a task to patrol effectively with sensible resources.
I agree with almost everything you state. There are no rights and wrongs, or sure thing answers. Its a topical debate and so far a good one. Each Question answered leaves another unanswered provided both sides are willing to listen.
It is no good for one person or a group to support Gun Buy back. It has to be a large political body with support of the people to stand even moderate success. And whilst considered a success in this country, it has its failing also. For us the time was right. I fear that the USA's time in relation to this will be a long time coming if ever at all. As stated its interesting to hear your views on it.
Laz, Thank God all you like. He wont help you staring a barrell down ;)
When was the last time, YOU were involved in some of these statistical surveys? I seem to be represented in almost all of them, yet I can never remember being asked a question for one of them.
The exception being those I see come through the job. Coppers, Police, whatever you call them, at least in this country, hate statistical surveys. When your entire life is swamped by paperwork putting the next crim behind bars or valiently attempting to do so, the last thing you want to see is something from some bonehead Uni Graduate asking you in a 10 page document. Coppers, those that actually do the job and not those who say they are but havent stopped shining a desk chair in 20 years, dont answer the things unless they have to do with paychecks.
This outrageous number of Sheriffs, Deputies, Troopers and so on you quote as having participated in this wonderful survey has me wondering if the whole thing is
a) Bull****
b) Every chair swinging deskjockey and staff member that the various Police departments could muster to scribe a response on direction from above.
Real Police dont have time for that BS.
I dont like stats. I dont trust them and anyone who does to the point you seemingly do, needs their head read.
surveys of felony prisoners in 10 state correctional ins. showed that 56% would not attack a person they believed might be armed..
Now theres a saintly bunch to be asking for decent honest answers eh? LOL. What do you think they are going to say Laz,
"Hell yes, the moment I get out of here im gonna find me the VCR of the first Gun Nut I find and stick it so far up his........"
If they are going to do State Correctional Statistics. Ask them all. Then you might get the response your are looking for. These guys are probably all Prison Farm detainees, on day release with priviliges. Real Crims, would make you swallow your survey and sit on the pencil.
Some hard data on "deterance" in the uk and aus... about 50% of all burglaries are "hot"... the people are home. In the U.S. it is 13% Now... since, as you claim, all people are the same then why would our burglars be more reluctant to enter a home that may be occupied? well..
Agreed about "Hot" Burglary incidents. Definately a growing trend, tho I doubt the issue has anything to do with whether or not the Owners have Firearms or not as the trend is consistant with the population of Druggies in both rural and urban areas.
Most of our Rural areas are still armed to the teeth Laz.
"Hot" Burglaries (Not a term we use here hence the " 's) are in correlation to the supply of drugs in the market. Instead of simply coming in to take property to fence off later, they are after cold hard cash. People feel safe in their homes and leave wallets and handbags all over the shop in the open for all to see and grab. Dealers now swap property directly for drugs and fence it themselves. The Druggies used to have to do it themselves to get cash to buy their stash. "Hot" Burglaries are consistant with the weather, time of day, how many trees are in your front yard, whether the screen door is open, whether they can see you in the backyard gardening or hanging up the washing etc.
"Hot" Burglaries have Nothing to do with Firearms, whether you have them or not.
Dont go into the car thing again. Deja gave me a headache with it. I cannot find any reasonable train of thought to support that analogy in your arguement and would only be repeating what ive already said.
:)
-
beetle.. all modern American revolvers (any 357 is a modern revolver) have a "safety" they have since around 1900 for double action arms. The safety is internal... You an't fire the weapon unless you pull the trigger all the way back and hold it back untill the hammer falls... It wont discharge if you throw it out of the window of you rcar at 60 mph or drop it from a 10 story building or even... if the hammer snags on somthing and it drawn back and released.
spook.... sheesh... you weren't asked because.... duh... you aren't an American cop... they don't care what you think...and it is easy to see why!
I don't count on god to help me (much) in the situation you describe.. It is better to just be armed. I actually felt quite calm the time I was lol, "taring down the barell" course I was a drug addict and dealer so it was kinda common to be talking to potentialy harmful people who were armed and I was pointing one myself. now days... I am a sedate frail old man but... I see no reason why when confronted with what I know to be out there that I would choose to be unarmed.
you are a silly man when it comes to data... don't like mine? think gallup polls are inaccurate? Your wrong of course but... lets see your data... so far, I have data and you come to the table with nothing but your dick in your hand. I can give you more if you like. Counter even one...
The percent of violent convicts who would admit that they were afraid is surprising... most are motivated by bravado and in other surveys showed an unrealistic bravado when asked about attacking able bodied men or dogs.
Glad you agree with the 50% "hot" burglaries... You of cours, are still in decent shape with some ability to defend yourself and... the ability and penchant to keep large dogs... you "may" be safe unless the intruder is armed but chances are... your ok... so...
since you feel safe why should anyone need any more than you have? Most are not able to defend themselves from the agressive criminal that might break into their home knowing they are there.... most don't keep dogs.. dogs are a pain and limit lifestyle if done fairly.. I like to take off at any time so I don't have dogs. people in apartments don't (or shouldn't have) dogs... dogs are dangerous and accidents with dogs are common.
waiting for one shred of hard data that backs up anything you have said about guns in America and glad that we don't wig out and give up our freedoms every time some nut abuses em... end up like the aussies that way...
lazs
-
since you like data so much (especially if it is from a national source and includes all incuidents)... here, from the justice department and, since we agree that concealed carry citizens in the U.S. are a benifiet with no downside.... (they preven crime and save lives but don't cause crime)....
The probability of serious injury from an attack on a woman is 2.5 times greater if she does not resist than if she resits with a firearm. in contrast... it is 4 times greater if she attempts to resist without a gun... for men the figure is 1.4 and 1.5 (easy to see why). So... you would say...what to these people? call a cop? bend over and grab your ankles like the brits?
lazs
funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."
-
History.... does anyone recall britan begging for firearms from the U.S. in order to arm ordinary citizens agains an across the channel attack? didn't the british have an "army" to protect them? Does anyone recall why we dropped Atomic bombs on japan? Last I heard we were afraid of "over a million casualties" from armed japanesse citizens. Japanesse leaders feared attacking the west coast of America because of it's armed citizens. even today... the first thing a warlord or military dictatorship does is disarm it's subjects... did not the UK disarm it's subjects? perhjaps they are different and should be trusted... don't see how anything can go wrong... the brits have a long history of treating their unarmed subjects fairly.
Thats a fair amount of conjecture, and very little actual fact.
Britain wasn't 'begging' for firearms from the US, it was after munitions and heavy weapons...tanks, ships, planes etc. A couple of shiploads of colt-45's and small arms would've hardly done much to stop a German Panzer division as the BEF found out itself by 1940. By the time most of the serious lend lease started the real threat of invasion had abated due to British produced ships, and fighters.
The armed japanese would've gained their weapons from the japanese military, and most of the casualties come from the suicidal tactics of the organised dug in defenders - not from jap farmers waving daddy's shotgun around the rice paddy, hopeing to knock off the odd american. As for fearing the armed US populace...thats a first, I've never heard of that one - I'd be interested where you learn't that actually. As far as I know, there was no serious intent to even invade Hawaii, let alone mainland USA. The intial attack on pearl was designed to delay the US pacific fleet , whilst the japanese swept south toward their intended targets and secure much needed Oil, and other resources.
I've heard this overlords disarm their populace, but yet to see any real examples. Hitler ? - Hitler made every youth drill and learn to use firearms through the Hitlerjugend.
The UK has never disarmed its populace until it's more stringent fire-arm laws has it?
The english subject made up its armies until the foundation of a regular army.
I think you're under the misconception that a self supplied citizen militia could defend it's self against a well supplied , organised army since the late 19th century.
Tronsky
-
this isn't england... our citizens are (and allways have been) equipped with considerably more than "daddys shotgun". The viet cong were equipped with sks rifles.. not a very good weapon but far from an antique shotgun.
believe what you will about modern man being different and armies being different. An armed population is a deterent to invasion and to tyranny. I can think of nothing that has changed that. Many modern armies, the worlds finest, have sought to overwhelm a population by simply out teching it. A determined population in a large country or one with difficult terrain can cause them no end of grief. Governments know this and the fact is a deterent. To believe otherwise is to not look at history.
I have a 1917 smith with british proof marks (7 tonnes). And you most certainly did beg for anything that would shoot to equip your home guard.
The quote about the japanesse atack on the west coast I admit that I can't recall where I got it. I recall it being from a naval commander but... I can't recall who or where I got it so... I retract it.
lazs
funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."
-
"I recall it being from a naval commander but... I can't recall who or where I got it"
I believe it's attributed to Yammamoto, as he did spend time in the USA prior to WW2. It's true that the Japanese never seriously considered invading the US mainland and I was always under the impression that the armed populace was one reason why.
Spook/Beet1e--
I'm glad we can at least generally agree with each other's points/presentation, even if we disagree with each other's final conclusions. Since I suppose I don't really have anything else to say that hasn't already been said, thanks for a good, thoughtful discussion--I appreciate it :)
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"I recall it being from a naval commander but... I can't recall who or where I got it"
I believe it's attributed to Yammamoto, as he did spend time in the USA prior to WW2. It's true that the Japanese never seriously considered invading the US mainland and I was always under the impression that the armed populace was one reason why.
Spook/Beet1e--
I'm glad we can at least generally agree with each other's points/presentation, even if we disagree with each other's final conclusions. Since I suppose I don't really have anything else to say that hasn't already been said, thanks for a good, thoughtful discussion--I appreciate it :)
J_A_B
Knowing very little about Yamamoto, that is indeed interesting. But I doubt very much that it had any real influence at all with Japanese planners. In fact none I would think considering the overall Japanese strategic intentions.
this isn't england... our citizens are (and allways have been) equipped with considerably more than "daddys shotgun". The viet cong were equipped with sks rifles.. not a very good weapon but far from an antique shotgun.
Yes and the VC were armed with a little more than just SKS rifles as well (as well as being backed up by the NVA). But again there is a vast difference between the 50-'60s Vietnamese communist fighter and your armed populace ideals.
Tronsky
-
Ok. Lets wrap this puppy up then. A good thread with lots of discussion. Thanks to all who participated.
To end it, a picture of Laz and his Civilian Defenders of Freedom :)
-
.
-
Ok... I admit it .. I don't get it. But then I didn't get the picture of the 25 auto that spook posted and called a 38 and... I still can't seem to ditg out any data at all from all of spooks pompous pontifications... probly just me.
but if it amuses bettle... I mean .. I thought he was the only guy who could cheer him up.
lazs
funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."
-
will somebody PLEASE insult somebody so this thread can be locked :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The quote about the japanesse atack on the west coast I admit that I can't recall where I got it. I recall it being from a naval commander but... I can't recall who or where I got it so... I retract it.
A Japanese sub fired a few artillery rounds at Battery Russel near Ft. Stevens, Oregon in WW2.
AKDejaVu