Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 06, 2003, 03:25:14 PM
-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,12079,1056411,00.html
Gun crime spreads 'like a cancer' across Britain
As the number of weapons on the streets grows and shootings become the norm, gun law is back at the top of the political agenda
Shock! Gun laws don't work! :p
-
better put up more cameras over there.
-Sik
-
They obviously need more gun control laws.
MiniD
-
Really think legalising guns in the UK would make gun crimes go down? No I don't think so. So for now we just have to put up with the occasional gun death - there maybe a lot of incidents, i.e. armed robberies etc., but there's not a great many deaths luckily!
-
How can you live like that? Yahooo! We don't have many gun deaths but we all get robbed, raped , and live in fear because the only ones armed are the crooks! Yahooo! Sorry, I's rather take my chances in a shoot out with some scumbag than let them come into my house, rape my wife, kill me and take my baby all in the name of ruducing gun deaths. I feel very sorry for you and the way you have to live in fear, just to make some stats look better.
-
im not sure why you gun nuts are worried about gun control laws...you all use them perfectly legally so you have nothing to hide or fear...so what if it takes you a few extra days to get it
oh and those having nothing to do with gun laws...some idiot got them legally then altered them illegally...so the system aint perfect WHAA WHAA WHAA
number of gun related crimes in uk / number of people
number of gun related crimes in us / number of people
look at the figures (i dont have them..sorry) THEN decide
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im not sure why you gun nuts are worried about gun control laws...you all use them perfectly legally so you have nothing to hide or fear...so what if it takes you a few extra days to get it
oh and those having nothing to do with gun laws...some idiot got them legally then altered them illegally...so the system aint perfect WHAA WHAA WHAA
I actually partly agree with you. One thing to take in account is that gun laws rarely touch the criminals...only the common man. I personally don't see much need for assault weapons as well.
My only complaint today is...ENFORCE the laws we have today. And, for convicts found with weapons on parole? Life in prison.
-
so its not the laws...its the enforcers...remember those guys DID get busted...how often does that happen in america?
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im not sure why you gun nuts are worried about gun control laws...you all use them perfectly legally so you have nothing to hide or fear...so what if it takes you a few extra days to get it
I don't recall seeing anyone here arguing over a waiting period... maybe you could post a link to that discussion?
Other than that... what laws could you impose in terms of gun control that would not affect people currently owning or wishing to purchase firearms? The acts that are trying to be avoided are already illegal.oh and those having nothing to do with gun laws...some idiot got them legally then altered them illegally...so the system aint perfect WHAA WHAA WHAA
Hard to argue with that one. Of course, some have been saying "if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them." I think a more important part of that article may have been the part where gun crime is actually higher now than before the ban. That do you still say "whaa whaa whaa" to that too? Or was the point of the ban not necessarily intended to curtail gun crime?
Though... this was my favorite part of the article (laz's too I might guess)"Although much of the blame has fallen on trends in music and fashion, particularly within the black community, which have helped to glamourise weapons, the problem is now spreading into other sectors of society."
LOL!
MiniD
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im not sure why you gun nuts are worried about gun control laws...you all use them perfectly legally so you have nothing to hide or fear...so what if it takes you a few extra days to get it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the instant background check, so there is no reason to delay the buying process, it serves no function. I do use all my guns legally, and no I don't have anything to hide, but if they outlaw guns altogether, than we have a problem. medicboy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh and those having nothing to do with gun laws...some idiot got them legally then altered them illegally...so the system aint perfect WHAA WHAA WHAA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Rip said the laws only affect those that follow the rules, criminals don't so more laws don't do any good, just enforce the laws we already have!!!! As far as assualt weapons, ya they are fun but serve no sporting purpos so I don't own any, that doesn't mean they should be banned. medicboy
-
Originally posted by medicboy
How can you live like that? Yahooo! We don't have many gun deaths but we all get robbed, raped , and live in fear because the only ones armed are the crooks! Yahooo! Sorry, I's rather take my chances in a shoot out with some scumbag than let them come into my house, rape my wife, kill me and take my baby all in the name of ruducing gun deaths. I feel very sorry for you and the way you have to live in fear, just to make some stats look better.
How can we live like that? Easily, we've never had guns as such (only certain gun club members could have certain calibers before the majority were banned - 90% of them had to store them at the gun club too) so it's not as if we miss them. In all honesty apart from the armed RAF/soldiers at work I've only seen a few hand guns in my life and obviously shotguns used by farmers etc.
Perhaps the rough side of inner cities have seen an increase in gun crime, plus there's always been robbers with sawn off shotguns, apart from that any gun death is a great surprise because it's so infrequent.
It's Catch 22 as far as guns are concerned because if you legalised them (in UK) you'd get the law abiding safety conscious citizen using them only in gun clubs but you'd also open up the market for criminals using them, what with them being more readily available. This would mean the Police would have to be armed making more criminals use them to counter the Police. You'd also get the psycho home owner shooting postmen and delivery guys too :), although I don't think legal owners would be allowed to keep them at home.
Like Ripsnort said, 'gun laws rarely touch the criminals...'. We have laws for everything, it only affects the common man. Only real positive thing about not having guns with the common man is no gun accidents.
Greatest crisis we see today is the constant failiure to punish criminals.
-
I don't recall seeing anyone here arguing over a waiting period... maybe you could post a link to that discussion? Other than that... what laws could you impose in terms of gun control that would not affect people currently owning or wishing to purchase firearms? The acts that are trying to be avoided are already illegal.
it might affect them a small bit but since there all doing legal stuff with them and have nothing to fear why are they worried? im all for guns for the use of protecting your family (Wich doesnt include "preemtive" strikes...you can shoot the f*er once it counts as proper defence), hunting and clay shooting.
yes the acts that are trying to be avoided are illegal...so by making it harder for the people who WILL use them illegally it SHOULD lower it...it also stops the psychos from getting a assault rifle or automatic weapon...seriously who needs those to kill a dear etc.
i took the waiting period thing out of context...you can ignore it if you want
-
Originally posted by Replicant
How can we live like that? Easily, we've never had guns as such (only certain gun club members could have certain calibers before the majority were banned - 90% of them had to store them at the gun club too) so it's not as if we miss them. In all honesty apart from the armed RAF/soldiers at work I've only seen a few hand guns in my life and obviously shotguns used by farmers etc.
Perhaps the rough side of inner cities have seen an increase in gun crime, plus there's always been robbers with sawn off shotguns, apart from that any gun death is a great surprise because it's so infrequent.
It's Catch 22 as far as guns are concerned because if you legalised them (in UK) you'd get the law abiding safety conscious citizen using them only in gun clubs but you'd also open up the market for criminals using them, what with them being more readily available. This would mean the Police would have to be armed making more criminals use them to counter the Police. You'd also get the psycho home owner shooting postmen and delivery guys too :), although I don't think legal owners would be allowed to keep them at home.
Like Ripsnort said, 'gun laws rarely touch the criminals...'. We have laws for everything, it only affects the common man. Only real positive thing about not having guns with the common man is no gun accidents.
Greatest crisis we see today is the constant failiure to punish criminals.
One sad point, one great point.
Yes the biggest crime is the failure of the courts to properly punnish the criminals, excellent point. If they did their job, we would not be talking about the rest of this stuff.
Sad point, your goverment doesn't trust people to keep guns at home??? OMFG why is this? Does your Govt trust people to wipe there own arses as well??? This sounds like you are living in a communist country and the Gevt is afraid of what an armed public might do.....
-
Sad point, your goverment doesn't trust people to keep guns at home??? OMFG why is this? Does your Govt trust people to wipe there own arses as well??? This sounds like you are living in a communist country and the Gevt is afraid of what an armed public might do.....
AMEN
only there not living in a communist country...there living in the father of democracies...
-
Anyone see the deliberate contradiction in their hype of gun-crime?
"Working with rudimentary tools in the basements of their homes, the pair had set themselves up as armourers to the local underworld, converting blank firing pistols into lethal weapons."
"Police intelligence suggests Shabir and Hussain were the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of similar gun factories have been set up in homes across the country and detectives admit guns are being put on the streets more quickly than they can take them off."
That's the story the police keep trotting out, that replicas, blank firers and air pistols are being converted to fire 22 LR.
However, the police also like to trot out the claim that you can buy a proper 9mm handgun for £200 in almost any pub in the country:
"As well as being converted from air guns and blank firing weapons, handguns are being imported from eastern Europe and beyond. A good quality semi-automatic handgun can be bought on the streets of London for as little as £200."
Makes you wonder why they bother converting guns, doesn't it? The sort of good quality blank firers and replica that can be converted cost at least £80, then you have to convert them, and sell them through illegal contacts. How would they actually make money?
It's hype. There were less than 100 people shot dead in Britain last year, compared to 10,000+ in America. And WE have an epidemic of gun crime????
Yahooo! We don't have many gun deaths but we all get robbed, raped , and live in fear because the only ones armed are the crooks! Yahooo!
But we don't. I "live in fear" that some kid will try to steal my car stereo when the car's parked outside. By and large, the crooks aren't armed. Almost every shooting in Britain is domestic, or one drug dealer shooting another.
Sorry, I's rather take my chances in a shoot out with some scumbag than let them come into my house, rape my wife, kill me and take my baby all in the name of ruducing gun deaths.
Do you know why people break in to other peoples houses? To steal things (and not babies, either)
Families are far safer when an unarmed burgular breaks in, than when an armed one breaks in and a gunfight develops.
There's a interesting site by the Nashville police, they detail the press releases for all the serious crimes in Nashville. You never have to go back far for a few good illustrations:
"September 30, 2003
Detectives are working to confirm the identities of the two would-be robbers who this afternoon fatally wounded the owner of Unique Hair Design at 720 Murfreesboro Road.
Wayne T. Martin, 56, of Mt. Juliet, died at 3:45 p.m. during surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Shortly before 2 p.m. today, Martin and a customer were inside Unique Hair Design when two men wearing red bandanas over their faces entered. At least one of the suspects was armed with a pistol. Martin immediately ran into a closet area and yelled to employees of an adjoining business, King’s Florist, that he was being robbed and to call the police. The suspects then retreated from Unique Hair Design. Martin retrieved a revolver from the business and ran outside. It appears that Martin and the suspects exchanged gunfire as the suspects ran to their car that was parked on the side of the business. Martin was hit and made it back inside the building. An ambulance was summoned and he was transported to Vanderbilt."
If he'd left it at calling for help, he'd still be alive.
Incidentally:
"Martin, today’s victim, is the same man who fatally wounded robbery suspect Michael Swilley on March 30, 2001. Swilley robbed King’s Florist at knifepoint. The shop owner yelled for help. Martin saw Swilley fleeing on foot, got into a vehicle and confronted him in the parking lot of a car dealership a short distance away. During the confrontation, Martin fatally wounded Swilley.
On August 26, 2002, Martin pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter for Swilley’s death. He was sentenced to four years probation."
Seems being on probation didn't stop him having a gun either.
And to put the number of guns in perspective:
Nottingham has almost exactly half the population of Nashville.
From the Guardian report:
"For the past 12 months police in Nottingham have been running Operation Stealth, an anti-firearms initiative. The team has made more than 580 arrests and recovered 160 weapons, "
160!!! (note "weapons", not neccessarily guns)
From a Nashville police press release last month:
"Over the past five years (1998-2002), Metro police officers have seized 11,744 guns, the vast majority of which were being carried illegally or were used in some type of crime. January through July of this year, 1,370 guns were confiscated."
-
Originally posted by medicboy
Sad point, your goverment doesn't trust people to keep guns at home??? OMFG why is this? Does your Govt trust people to wipe there own arses as well??? This sounds like you are living in a communist country and the Gevt is afraid of what an armed public might do.....
Some people are permitted to keep shotguns and small calibre weapons at home after a Police inspection. Before the majority of guns were banned most larger calibre weapons were forbidden from being kept at home and must be kept at a gun club.
Why would you want to keep guns at home though? Unless you're a farmer or clay pigeon shooter etc., there's no where to use them unless at a gun club. You definitely wouldn't be able to use them for self-defence since European/British law would most likely prosecute you (yep, unbelievable but true!). Some cases have seen people imprisoned for shooting intruders, some other cases they've been let off - guess it depends on the judge! I can understand it in some circumstances, imagine a farmer who's been burgled a few times. Next time he's going to shoot them, fair play, but the next intruder isn't a criminal but someone who is lost..... bang! Okay not good example but one that is feasible.
I don't mind shotguns being kept at home but I'd go against hand guns because you'd always get some loony trying to take a concealed weapon out on the street and then using it.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
so its not the laws...its the enforcers...remember those guys DID get busted...how often does that happen in america?
I suppose this should be obvious, but...
If we did not enforce gun laws, the broken gun law statistics would be rather slim wouldn't they?
-
I guess thats the difference. I would much rather live someplace where you were aloud to cary a concealed weapon than live somewhere you wern't. I feel it would be much safer. You will never stop the psycho nuts from doing something stupid but you could end their rampage early with a few honest people and a few well placed shots.
-
I was thinking of 'heat of the moment' temptation syndrome. If people were carrying concealed guns and there was a fight or whatever, would someone be so angry as to use it?
-
I prefer living in a country with strict gun laws.
No gun laws = easier for a nut to get a deadly weapon
Gun Laws = only resourceful criminals get one. Ratio of resourceful criminals / Police Forces is quite balanced.
That's enough for me.
Daniel
-
Replicant, In states that have right to cary laws there are less shootings than states that don't allow it. Its about using your head, I'm not advocating that any one can get a gun and just walk around with it. There should be training and responsibility.
-
Almost every shooting in Britain is domestic, or one drug dealer shooting another.
This sounds familiar.
Gun crimes in UK are up 50% since the gun laws were tightened, that in itself is yet another demonstration that gun laws don't deter criminals, they just disarm the law-abiding public.
ra
-
And having vastly less gun crime and gun deaths per capita, even with a higher base crime rate doesn't argue the contrary?
-
Originally posted by Pei
And having vastly less gun crime and gun deaths per capita, even with a higher base crime rate doesn't argue the contrary?
If gun crime had gone down after the new gun restrictions, then gun laws could be credited with the UK's low gun crime rate. But gun crime is going up, so apparently gun laws were not the reason for the low gun crime rate. This same thing can be observed all over the world, but anti-gun types never want to hear about it.
ra
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Almost every shooting in Britain is domestic, or one drug dealer shooting another.
You guys have drugs too?
-Sik
-
I would much rather have a gun and live in fear than NOT have a gun and live in fear :D
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I prefer living in a country with strict gun laws.
Daniel
So do I
Tronsky
-
you can live in england and think your safe, i will live in the land of the free, carry a gun and know i'm safe.
-
On motoring: Driving too fast is dangerous... many abide by the speed limits, but some do not. Therefore, "speed limits don't work". Ripsnort's solution - abolish speed limits so that no law is being broken. :rolleyes:
Gun control laws in Britain DO work. They just don't work perfectly. The fact that our gun laws work is why we have fewer than 100 gun deaths each year, whereas America always has many thousands - more than 13,000 in some years.
Our criminals are no better than yours. If we were to enact the "Ripsnort Remedy" by doing away with gun control laws because they "don't work", we would have a bloodbath, and we too would have thousands of gun deaths each year instead of fewer than 100.
Rip - glad to see you're reading a British broadsheet newspaper - does wonders to improve one's grammar and spelling. The bad news (and you're not going to like this) is that the Guardian is possibly the most left wing (ie LIBERAL) broadsheet in Britain.
Try http://www.telegraph.co.uk
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I prefer living in a country with strict gun laws.
No gun laws = easier for a nut to get a deadly weapon
Gun Laws = only resourceful criminals get one. Ratio of resourceful criminals / Police Forces is quite balanced.
That's enough for me.
Daniel
ditto
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I would much rather have a gun and live in fear than NOT have a gun and live in fear :D
I don't have a gun, and I don't live in fear. :D
-
amount of children killed in the US every year from accidental weapons discharge -------30
amount of children killed by a bucket of water in the US every year---35
lets ban buckets or at least control and register users of said weapons....
statistics are all in how you use them.....
BTW beetle----Britains gun control laws have been in affect since guns were invented----hell even the Bobbys didnt carry them until recently......And the reason for your gun control isnt because of crime --they were because your kings (and queens) were afraid that the common people might decide to go the way of the "colonies" and get rid of them.....
Gun control in the states is an issue today because politicaly powerful know that americans dont feel to bad about getting up the arms to straighten out the government......its not about crime ------it scares the crap out of the authorties to have an honest bright-minded people to have the ability to shoot stupid people IE: criminals, polititions, liberals and democrats.........
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I would much rather have a gun and live in fear than NOT have a gun and live in fear :D
If you think you need a gun to protect yourself, you already are living in fear.
-
"Gun crimes in UK are up 50% since the gun laws were tightened, that in itself is yet another demonstration that gun laws don't deter criminals, they just disarm the law-abiding public"
So you're arguing that a few thousand pistol enthusiasts were somehow holding back a crimewave prior to the handgun ban? Despite the fact that concealed carry was never legal? Despite the fact that the majority of handgun owners didn't keep their weapons at home?
Has gun crime gone up since the handgun ban? Yes. Did gun crime go up because of the handgun ban? No. Can't you see the difference? :rolleyes:
-
BTW beetle----Britains gun control laws have been in affect since guns were invented
Gun ownership was unregulated until just after WW 1.
hell even the Bobbys didnt carry them until recently
Until the 20s or 30s, it was up to an individual policeman if he wanted to buy and carry a gun, some did, the vast majority didn't bother.
And the reason for your gun control isnt because of crime --they were because your kings (and queens) were afraid that the common people might decide to go the way of the "colonies" and get rid of them
No, the government were afraid of a communist takeover in the wake of WW1 and the Russian revolution. The government, who make the laws, not the Kings and Queens, who have no political power.
If gun crime had gone down after the new gun restrictions, then gun laws could be credited with the UK's low gun crime rate.
Gun crime did go down after the new laws. Britain's gun crime is now "the highest since 1993"
you can live in england and think your safe, i will live in the land of the free, carry a gun and know i'm safe.
Where you have about 5 times the chance of being murdered.
Are American policemen safe? They all carry guns to protect them, and many wear body armour as well. 70 were shot dead on duty last year. Very safe.
Replicant, In states that have right to cary laws there are less shootings than states that don't allow it.
Could it be that states that allow concealed carry are mainly rural, whilst states that don't are mainly urban? And all over the world, urban areas have higher crime rates.
-
nope shotguns and hunting rifles have always been the mainstay of the people...pistols were not a common weapon. Even these were not incuraged for getting permission to hunt on a lords property was extremely hard for a "serf". The British population had been trained as a "common" army from the longbow days, firearms were not allowed to be kept by the average joe.
US police followed the british form of not carrying pistols UNTIL the 20's and 30's then crime got so bad they had to arm themselves in the eastern urban area's, mainly newyork city. I'm not talking about sherrifs and marshals and those forms of law-inforcement. Police=peacekeepers, not law-inforcers.
Wasnt the communist they were afraid of lol...
The US had its own communist "problem" though it was handled badly (IMO) disarming the population certainly wasnt an answer.
-
But, but you guys banned handguns - surely making them illegal would have solved these problems...
What are these people who still have handguns in the UK thinking? Good lord, what are they criminals or something?
BTW is it true the British olympic (iirc) handgun shooting team was forced to practice outside the UK aftyer the handgun ban...
GUN CRIMES UP 35% in ONE YEAR! :p
-
Originally posted by Momus--
"Gun crimes in UK are up 50% since the gun laws were tightened, that in itself is yet another demonstration that gun laws don't deter criminals, they just disarm the law-abiding public"
So you're arguing that a few thousand pistol enthusiasts were somehow holding back a crimewave prior to the handgun ban? Despite the fact that concealed carry was never legal? Despite the fact that the majority of handgun owners didn't keep their weapons at home?
Has gun crime gone up since the handgun ban? Yes. Did gun crime go up because of the handgun ban? No. Can't you see the difference? :rolleyes:
Can you see that the handgun ban did not prevent gun crimes from going up 50%?
Anyway, you should feel very safe in knowing that law abiding citizens will never again be allowed to own handguns.
ra
-
What are the latest "sharp instrument" numbers?
-
They are going about the gun control issue all wrong in england...
The guns causing the problem are HANDGUNS notice the word "hand" is first.... take away everyones hands and you will solve the handgun problem.
lazs
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I prefer living in a country with strict gun laws.
No gun laws = easier for a nut to get a deadly weapon
Gun Laws = only resourceful criminals get one. Ratio of resourceful criminals / Police Forces is quite balanced.
That's enough for me.
Daniel
Amen.
-
God did not create man equal.... Colonel Colt did. In America we believe that. it works for us. Burglars don't rob houses with people in em here.
Concealed carry gun owners don't "heat of the the moment" shoot people... they don't commit crimes of any sort... they are 100 times more law abiding than the average citizen actually.
More third worlders in your country means you won't be able to pretend that you are safe with your "gun control laws" that never solved anything in the first place... You want to keep living the lie than keep out the third worlders. Canada can really be smug and hypocritical since they have a nation that is far richer than theirs on their border.... Australia is isolated and Japan and england are friggin tiny little islands.
but... it's gonna get worse... the have nots are looking you guys over.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
On motoring: Driving too fast is dangerous... many abide by the speed limits, but some do not. Therefore, "speed limits don't work". Ripsnort's solution - abolish speed limits so that no law is being broken. :rolleyes:[/url]
But the method you want to use is: Driving too fast is dangerous. ...many abide by the speed limits, but some do not. Therefore the present limits do not work. So we'll keep adding limits until we take away your cars. And, by the way, the only ones who'll have to give them up are the ones who weren't speeding in the first place.
Momus:
You just made my/our point. You took guns away from those who legally enjoyed shooting sports. But crime still went up. So all you've done is kept law-abiding citizens from having weapons, for whatever purpose. No, those people probably weren't holding back crime, but they weren't causing it either. Yet they are the ones who've born the punishment for someone else's crimes.
To all:
I have several weapons. I have a permit to carry them concealed. I live in the 5th largest city in the US (Phoenix) We have a decent crime rate, largely due to illegal aliens from Mexico and the drug trade. I do not live in fear. I do no own guns because of fear.
There is always going to be a basic point where most Europeans do not understand the way Americans feel. And that's because we feel it's our right to keep and bear arms. It is not something given to us by the government that can be taken away by our government. Just as our government can't take away our right to free speech or religion or voting. That right can be limited, there's already over 20,000 federal, state and local laws controlling firearms in the US, but it can't be destroyed.
A few facts to leave with you:
At the same time the crime rate and the overall murder rate has reached a 22-year low, privately owned firearms increased in the U.S. by an average of 5.3 million per year during the 1990s. (BATF)
Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Well over 200 million, including 65-70 million handguns
Gun owners in the U.S.: 60-65 million; 30-35 million own handguns
American households that have firearms: Approx. 45%
Hunters nationwide: 14 million (16 yrs. of age and older)
I wont argue with you, just ask you to look at the numbers. There are more guns in the US than ever before and the crime numbers, across the board, are going down. Yet in places like England and Australia, which confiscated a vast majority of private owned firearms, the crime rates have gone up.
To me that means that guns aren't the problem. Yet the response is to say, "Take them away from law-abiding citizens!".
Then we show you that in countries such as Australia and England, the number of crimes comitted with guns has gone up since guns were widely outlawed.
So, let's take a look at this. We've shown that more guns do not equal more crime. And we've shown that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens does not equal less crime (in fact, it seems to equal more).
But it's so much easier to point at a gun and scream "There's the problem!!!". Because otherwise, you might have to look at the person holding it. And then you might have to do the hard job of figuring out why he's holding it and why he's thinking of using it. And that reflects on society as a whole. Which can be uncomfortable.
So once again, you cry for us to strike at the symptom, not the disease. And, like giving make-up to someone suffering from cancer, the problem may look better but it's still killing you.
Guns are not the problem, criminals are the problem. Because they will get guns or some other weapon if they need it. Reduce crime and reduce gun crime.
And with that, I bow out of this thread. The numbers are there that show gun control is a lie told to the people by the politicians because it's easier to attack them than fix our society.
There are people who don't see because they can't. Then there are people who don't see because they wont.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im not sure why you gun nuts are worried about gun control laws...you all use them perfectly legally so you have nothing to hide or fear...so what if it takes you a few extra days to get it
oh and those having nothing to do with gun laws...some idiot got them legally then altered them illegally...so the system aint perfect WHAA WHAA WHAA
number of gun related crimes in uk / number of people
number of gun related crimes in us / number of people
look at the figures (i dont have them..sorry) THEN decide
This coming from a country which is taking it's citizens guns from them....that will help, the criminals I mean.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
God did not create man equal.... Colonel Colt did. In America we believe that. it works for us. Burglars don't rob houses with people in em here.
Concealed carry gun owners don't "heat of the the moment" shoot people... they don't commit crimes of any sort... they are 100 times more law abiding than the average citizen actually.
More third worlders in your country means you won't be able to pretend that you are safe with your "gun control laws" that never solved anything in the first place... You want to keep living the lie than keep out the third worlders. Canada can really be smug and hypocritical since they have a nation that is far richer than theirs on their border.... Australia is isolated and Japan and england are friggin tiny little islands.
but... it's gonna get worse... the have nots are looking you guys over.
lazs
Paranoia served with a "hint" of xenophobia.
I suggest a Mosel or possibly a Burgundy to go with that.
;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
On motoring: Driving too fast is dangerous... many abide by the speed limits, but some do not. Therefore, "speed limits don't work". Ripsnort's solution - abolish speed limits so that no law is being broken. :rolleyes:
Actually... you're wrong. One solution would be to enforce the existing speed limit laws. The G.B. solution would be to abollish driving - the only sure way to prevent speeding.Gun control laws in Britain DO work. They just don't work perfectly. The fact that our gun laws work is why we have fewer than 100 gun deaths each year, whereas America always has many thousands - more than 13,000 in some years.
Were bobbies armed when the gun ban went into affect and are they now? Are there more or less gun crimes or deaths per year in G.B. after they were banned?Our criminals are no better than yours. If we were to enact the "Ripsnort Remedy" by doing away with gun control laws because they "don't work", we would have a bloodbath, and we too would have thousands of gun deaths each year instead of fewer than 100.
Really? Is a bloodbath what you had going on prior to the strict ban? There's history that indicates how G.B. behaves when they were allowed to own guns... none of it paints the picture you're trying to display. A country made a unilateral decision to restrict people's ability to defend themselves based on the actions of one crazy person. An act... btw... that hasn't really been duplicated anywhere in the world that I know of (at least... not with a gun). Of course, machette killings in schools is on the rise... but that's a different topic for discussion.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by lazs2
They are going about the gun control issue all wrong in england...
The guns causing the problem are HANDGUNS notice the word "hand" is first.... take away everyones hands and you will solve the handgun problem.
lazs
Sound logic....employed wisdom....very clever....let's do it.
-
A country made a unilateral decision to restrict people's ability to defend themselves based on the actions of one crazy person. An act... btw... that hasn't really been duplicated anywhere in the world that I know of (at least... not with a gun).
Australia and Canada also tightened gun laws in response to a psycho killing spree.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
On motoring: Driving too fast is dangerous... many abide by the speed limits, but some do not. Therefore, "speed limits don't work". Ripsnort's solution - abolish speed limits so that no law is being broken. :rolleyes:
Gun control laws in Britain DO work. They just don't work perfectly. The fact that our gun laws work is why we have fewer than 100 gun deaths each year, whereas America always has many thousands - more than 13,000 in some years.
beetle did the UK ever have more than about 100-200 gun deaths a year .......before the knee-jerk ban on handguns? If not, then what exactly has the gun ban acomplished?
And the speed limit analogy is a bad one. You think banning guns is similar to having a speed limit? Just because people speed or drink and drive doesnt mean you ban cars. (or maybe it should in the UK to be consistant with the logic of a gun ban)
Wouldnt you think that laws could be made to make gun crime illegal and not the gun itself, similar to drunk driving laws and cars? :lol
Tell us why guns, which have never been responsible for more than a hundred or so deaths in the UK, are banned ( after 1 guy killed 16 people ) yet you don't feel the same need to ban cars or alcohol, which combine to kill many thousands a year?
You might say that guns have no redeeming values or legitimate use. Same would apply to alcohol. Then you may argue that alcohol itself cant kill someone.... the same applies to guns and cars.
-
I dunno what all the fuss is about. I'd say the majority feel pretty safe in the UK, I know I do especially when I know that everyones not carrying guns. Guns are so rare that if you do get shot then you probably would have been killed by something else if it wasn't a gun.
I honestly think I'd be more scared if people did carry guns; I simply wouldn't trust people with them! As for pointy things, well if I had a choice of killing someone with a knife or a gun I'd choose the gun as it's easier and more 'detached'. With a knife you got to get up close and personal, not a nice thought at the best of times.
Gangs are arming themselves in the UK to counter other gangs who seem to model themselves on drug-dealing US film characters. It's all to do with image and pretending they're tough hiding behind a gun.
Some men get turned on by women, some men get turned on by cars, some men get turned on by guns! Sad but true!
-
Some men get turned on by women, some men get turned on by cars, some men get turned on by guns!
All together now.....
-
Its not about fear...I LOVE MY GUNS!!!!!!
and Im not afraid. just stating a preference if there was to be fear.
Nice try though :D
-
"I believe all women should wear tight clothes and all men should carry powerful handguns."
- Calvin of "Calvin and Hobbes"
-
Originally posted by Dune
I live in the 5th largest city in the US (Phoenix)
Phoenix is not the 5th largest US city. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia are all larger than Phoenix. Any other well researched facts you want to dazzle us with?
Mr. Toad! "What are the latest "sharp instrument" numbers?" You should know. You're in the industry that banned sharp instruments. :D
MiniD - as far as I know, we were never allowed to own handguns. It was never like the US where you can walk into a store (or even a bank - lol) and come away with a gun with an effective range of 400+ yards. I've lived in Britain all my life except for about 3 years. I've never known anyone who owned a handgun at any time. Shotguns are fairly commonplace though. Bobbies on the beat don't routinely carry guns even today. That is left to the discretion of the Chief Constable of their force. My local police force - Thames Valley Police - is the largest in the country (I think that's in terms of the area they cover, not # of officers) and they are not armed as a matter of routine.
The bloodbath I fear if guns were legalised would be something like 1500-3000 deaths a year. Many of those killed would indeed be drug dealers and other criminals, but many more innocent bystanders would be killed. Those are people like the teenage girls that were having a party at their hair salon in Birmingham last year and were caught in the crossfire between two rival drug gangs, and the seven year old girl who was shot dead on a street in NW London last month. Those kinds of fatalities would increase 20-fold - not something the British public wants to see.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It was never like the US where you can walk into a store (or even a bank - lol) and come away with a gun with an effective range of 400+ yards.
Just a small aside...
The scene from BFC you refer to was a contrivance, filmed with actors. Artistic license was stretched to a greater degree than is customary for a documentary.
While the bank in the film did give away guns, they were in the form of certificates redeemable at the local sporting goods store.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Phoenix is not the 5th largest US city. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia are all larger than Phoenix. Any other well researched facts you want to dazzle us with?
Phily was bigger by roughly 120,000 in July. However, in the next year, Phoenix will pass Phily in size: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/07/09/news/local/6262383.htm
BTW, is that the best you can come up with? All the other numbers and facts I've thrown out and I get this? A snide remark as if this invalidates anything else I've said. Tell me, does it in any way make you feel better since you've lost the debate?
-
Originally posted by ra
All together now.....
It's okay RA we don't want to take your toys, er guns, away! :)
-
Well if the actions of the PEOPLE who are the criminals were taken into account when they were caught and the punish made to fit the crime when convicted, then guns themselves wouldnt be an issue..
As mentioned by a few in the previous posts society itself and the way it deals with crime and criminals are at the root of the problem......Not weapons themselves ,,,,ya I know the old adage "guns dont kill people-people kill people" is so true that when saying that, antigun jerks start screaming the minute you kill their aurgument with it.....
If responsibility were part of the responce to criminal acts then gun control would be a non issue...
-
Replicant: So for now we just have to put up with the occasional gun death - there maybe a lot of incidents, i.e. armed robberies etc., but there's not a great many deaths luckily!
If your ancestors did not resist Germany in WWII, you would just have had to put up with a mild occupation, occasional jew or communist death, maybe a lot of minor oppression/abuse incidents, but there would have not been a great may deaths...
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[ If your ancestors did not resist Germany in WWII, you would just have had to put up with a mild occupation, occasional jew or communist death, maybe a lot of minor oppression/abuse incidents, but there would have not been a great may deaths...
miko
What a very odd thing to say Miko.:confused:
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Replicant: So for now we just have to put up with the occasional gun death - there maybe a lot of incidents, i.e. armed robberies etc., but there's not a great many deaths luckily!
If your ancestors did not resist Germany in WWII, you would just have had to put up with a mild occupation, occasional jew or communist death, maybe a lot of minor oppression/abuse incidents, but there would have not been a great may deaths...
miko
What on earth has that got to do with owning guns? Even if we did have guns the majority of the general public couldn't keep the guns at home but would make them more available to criminals. Would that increase or decrease gun deaths? Unless you want us to be vigilantes but that would make us no better than the criminals.
I cannot understand that some people in the US cannot understand that guns are not part of the UK culture and no matter what people say we're not suddenly going to say 'we all want guns' because it's never going to happen. Whereas in the US people have grown up with guns, if guns were suddenly made legal in the UK it would be catastrophic and like I said earlier I simply wouldn't trust anyone with one!
-
Originally posted by drone
Well if the actions of the PEOPLE who are the criminals were taken into account when they were caught and the punish made to fit the crime when convicted, then guns themselves wouldnt be an issue..
As mentioned by a few in the previous posts society itself and the way it deals with crime and criminals are at the root of the problem......Not weapons themselves ,,,,ya I know the old adage "guns dont kill people-people kill people" is so true that when saying that, antigun jerks start screaming the minute you kill their aurgument with it.....
If responsibility were part of the responce to criminal acts then gun control would be a non issue...
Exactly, it's the justice system that sucks.
However, since the banning of guns it has made obtaining guns extremely difficult. Many of the guns on the streets have either been reactivated old guns (ones that had originally been deactivated) or modified replicas and there was some talk of banning certain replicas that could be converted by a competent engineer.
I'm not anti-gun, I wouldn't mind one myself, but people arming themselves with knives now would start arming themselves with guns instead.
-
guns dont kill people
but they sure as hell help...i for one would rather have a psycho armed with a knife than with a gun...or unarmed completely
-
Originally posted by Replicant
However, since the banning of guns it has made obtaining guns extremely difficult. Many of the guns on the streets have either been reactivated old guns (ones that had originally been deactivated) or modified replicas and there was some talk of banning certain replicas that could be converted by a competent engineer.
Are you sure that's the case?
Tony Thompson
Sunday October 5, 2003
The Observer
Few people paid much attention when, late last month, Shabir Hussain and his friend Mohammed Shabir were jailed for 11 years at Birmingham Crown Court. Working with rudimentary tools in the basements of their homes, the pair had set themselves up as armourers to the local underworld, converting blank firing pistols into lethal weapons.
They produced more than 170 guns and sold them to gangs from Bristol to Manchester.
One week after the jailings, the murder of Nottingham jewellery shop owner Marian Bates, the gunning down of Hertfordshire gangster Dave King, and a drive-by shooting in Reading in which three men were injured on Friday night, as well as last month's shooting of seven-year-old Toni Ann Byfield, have brought the issue of gun crime to the top of the political agenda.
According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, gun crime is 'growing like a cancer' and spreading to smaller communities.
Police intelligence suggests Shabir and Hussain were the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of similar gun factories have been set up in homes across the country and detectives admit guns are being put on the streets more quickly than they can take them off. For the past 12 months police in Nottingham have been running Operation Stealth, an anti-firearms initiative. The team has made more than 580 arrests and recovered 160 weapons, 10 fewer than the Birmingham duo produced in a quarter of the time. The murder rate in Nottinghamshire has almost doubled. 'We're getting the right information,' says Assistant Chief Constable Peter Ditchett, 'but we're just not getting enough of it.'
Last year saw a record 35 per cent jump in gun crimes, which means there are now, on average, 30 incidents each day. There were almost 10,000 incidents involving firearms recorded in England and Wales and, although the largest increases were in metropolitan areas, the figures showed use of handguns was also growing in rural communities. Overall, handguns were used in almost half of these incidents.
Handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on ownership of handguns introduced the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in the Perthshire town.
It was hoped the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. Now handgun crime is at its highest since 1993.
As well as being converted from air guns and blank firing weapons, handguns are being imported from eastern Europe and beyond. A good quality semi-automatic handgun can be bought on the streets of London for as little as £200.
New laws that make carrying a firearm an offence with a mandatory five-year sentence have won little favour with officers on the street. 'It changes nothing,' said one drug squad detective who asked to remain anonymous. 'Most of the kids carry guns in order to protect themselves when they are dealing. They are going around with enough crack or heroin to ensure that they go away for 10 years if they get caught. Because of that, they feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by carrying a gun. They carry them just for the hell of it.'
Notorious underworld figure Joey Pyle agrees. 'In the old days, during the time of the Krays and the Richardsons, people didn't go around with guns on them all the time. You only got tooled up if you were out on a bit of work. That's all changed now. For a lot of people out there, having a gun is little more than a fashion accessory.'
Although much of the blame has fallen on trends in music and fashion, particularly within the black community, which have helped to glamourise weapons, the problem is now spreading into other sectors of society.
The Metropolitan Police's flagship and hugely successful Operation Trident is described as an initiative against black-on-black gun related crime in the capital. In Nottingham, Operation Stealth has been criticised for concentrating on the problem of gun crime within the black community but, with both suspects in the latest shooting there being white, this focus is now being questioned.
'It's no longer a black or white issue,' says Lyndon Gibson of the Urban Nation Youth Project. 'These guns are in the hands of the whole community. Guns are everywhere and they are being used by everyone.'
Assistant Chief Constable Nick Tofiluk, of the West Midlands Police, agrees. 'The use of firearms is not an Afro-Caribbean issue alone. White and Asian networks exist that possess firearms and are involved in the supply of illicit drugs both to the Afro-Caribbean networks and in competition with existing networks. The potential for inter-ethnic criminal disputes is increasing.'
The suspects in the murder of Dave King in Hoddesdon were wearing masks but some witnesses have described them as being white. King, who worked as a security guard to a number of high-profile musicians and also had links to the boxing world, was well known to local police.
Assistant Chief Constable Jeremy Alford says the Hertfordshire Police investigation will be looking closely at King's associates. 'I can say that he is a person who had some criminal convictions in the past and his past could be described as involving some considerable criminality.'
A police spokeswoman said a second man who was injured in the shooting had been discharged from hospital and was at a secret location. She said forensic officers were continuing to examine the scene and a vehicle - thought to be the van used by the gunmen - which had been found burnt out and abandoned in the Lampits area of Hoddesdon..
King's murder came amid heightened concern over gun crime after a mother was shot dead in Nottingham while trying to protect her daughter from armed robbers.
Marian Bates, 64, leapt in front of her daughter as one of the two young criminals aimed a handgun at the 34-year-old and demanded gems from the family shop.
Her husband of 42 years, Victor, 64, suffered head injuries in the struggle,
Mr Bates said the gunman had first attempted to shoot him but the weapon misfired. 'My wife ran forward to get between the gunman and my daughter and he shot her dead. She was a brave woman, not at all foolhardy. She was protecting her daughter, like every mother.'
Victor Bates has called on the Government to take action to end the problem of gun crime. Home Secretary David Blunkett has promised action. He is believed to be pinning many of his hopes on the new head of the Home Office's Police Standards Unit, Paul Evans, who previously worked in the American city of Boston, significantly reducing gun crime.
'I want him to bring that experience and share it with us. I want the experience of the Metropolitan Police in London, with Operation Trident dealing with gang warfare, guns and drugs, to be spread across the country. If we can do that, I think we can take these people on and we can beat them,' Blunkett said.
The most recent shooting incident took place in Elm Park, Reading, Berkshire, when three men were blasted with a shotgun. Just before 10.30pm on Friday the men were hit by shots fired from a dark blue or black Volvo-type car, Thames Valley Police said.
One of the victims suffered serious facial injuries, the other two shotgun wounds to their arms and back.
All three were taken to the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading, where the man with facial injuries was undergoing surgery.
A Thames Valley Police spokeswoman said: 'None of the injuries is believed to be life threatening.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story...1056412,00.html
-
Originally posted by Dune
BTW, is that the best you can come up with? All the other numbers and facts I've thrown out and I get this? A snide remark as if this invalidates anything else I've said. Tell me, does it in any way make you feel better since you've lost the debate?
There's nothing more to come up with that hasn't been said in earlier threads. I haven't "lost any debate". This thread was composed by Ripsnort, and addressed to me asking for an explanation of what's happening in Britain regading crime levels, gun control laws etc. I answered Ripsnort's questions.
Earlier you said "And with that, I bow out of this thread." Hmmph, about as much truth in that as Phoenix being the 5th largest city.
-
Dune, as I pointed out earlier, police in Nashville recover about 10 times the number of guns per capita as police in Nottinham, one of the "stars" of that report. (of course, in Nashville, police only recover guns that are being held by a criminal, how many can't they sieze because they belong to girlfriends, wives, brothers, friends of criminals?)
-
Last year saw a record 35 per cent jump in gun crimes, which means there are now, on average, 30 incidents each day. There were almost 10,000 incidents involving firearms recorded in England and Wales and, although the largest increases were in metropolitan areas, the figures showed use of handguns was also growing in rural communities. Overall, handguns were used in almost half of these incidents.
Obvious nonsense. They already BANNED guns and collected them all, so this is clearly tripe.
There aren't any guns.. don't you see? They're BANNED and COLLECTED. They have actual LAWS about this.
So, this is clearly inaccurate.
Gun bans WORK.
Of course... if they don't, they may have to hire Laz on as consultant. Since the "gun" ban didn't work, they may have to move on the "hand" ban.
I'm sure the old neck chopping blocks will serve nicely as hand removal stations.
-
Come on Toad, don't be so naive.
No one collected any guns after the stricter gun laws came into effect, any registered gun owners would have had to surrender them, but for the most the Police held an amnesty asking people to volunteer them. Anyone caught having an illegal firearm would face prosecution (creating another firearm incident no doubt!).
And it isn't a gun ban, more like a ban on certain calibres so there's still going to be guns around. However, I do believe that the stricter gun laws have worked, I'm sure the 'incidents' figure would be 50 times higher than the one reported if not for a gun calibre ban which I can accept. No one in the UK needs .44 magnums, 7.62mm Kalashnikovs, Uzi 9mm's, etc., simply because there is no where to use them. People that enjoy shooting either go clay pigeon, game shooting, target shooting (small bore) etc. Like any law, they are there to be followed or broken. Take road speeding, there are speed limits which are law, they get broken but at the same time they do slow people down as well. I guess it's a compromise of all hell bent abuse and people working within the law (or along the fringe of it - e.g. I break speed limits on occasion on quiet roads but in built up areas I respect speed limits).
-
Nexx,
I've been to England and have shot in England. I've hung out with the folks that DO have guns and know how to use them.
So, I'm probably more familiar with England's gun practices than some of the Yanks posting here.
Nonetheless, it's funny to us on this side of the pond, after the lectures we've had on the BBS about our guns and crime and the superiority of the English ban method, to see your gun crime increasing sharply while ours continues to drop.
Sorry... we can't resist a few jabs.
-
Beetle, you once said that gun deaths in the UK never exceded a couple hundred a year. So why did the UK ban guns? What has the gun banned improved?
It's comical to me.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Earlier you said "And with that, I bow out of this thread." Hmmph, about as much truth in that as Phoenix being the 5th largest city.
And how does Beetle know that Phoenix is not the 5th largest US city? He must have up to the second information that no one else has.
I have also heard that Phoenix is the 5th largest US city as of now by most estimates, but Im sure Beetle is more of an authority...after all he knows everything about America based on his living here for a couple of years....... 55 years ago
-
How much has the ages old traditional anglo saxon culture of UK changed in the last 30 years or so?
If the change has been substantial, has it been for the better?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Earlier you said "And with that, I bow out of this thread." Hmmph, about as much truth in that as Phoenix being the 5th largest city.
Heh. So sorry for coming back to make a point. A thousand pardons. But I'm also sorry that you're dog wont hunt. You've been fighting facts with feelings.
So, now I'll leave this thread. I'm sure that there'll be another one along soon. And you'll lose there also.
-
Saw this debate and this one on PPRuNe.
More Americans killed by guns between 1979 and 1997 than in all wars since 1775
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=103496
Quite a long heated thread
Puts it in perspective I think.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Beetle, you once said that gun deaths in the UK never exceded a couple hundred a year. So why did the UK ban guns? What has the gun banned improved?
It's comical to me.
The UK never had more than 100 gun deaths in any year because of gun control laws. Without those laws, my guess is that the number would quickly rise to around 1500-3000. Read my initial post in this thread.
I never did get an answer from Ripsnort about why the US banned heroin. Fewer people die from it than from gunshot wounds, and I am told by Ripsnort that it is a "victimless crime" (possession/supply/use of heroin) So why did the US ban heroin? What has the heroin ban improved?
It's comical to me.
Godzilla - "And how does Beetle know that Phoenix is not the 5th largest US city? He must have up to the second information that no one else has."
Last time I visited Phoenix (Xmas, 2001) I saw signs up saying that it's one of the fastest growing cities, and 6th largest. So when I saw Dune's statement, I checked the stats with the census bureau website. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet
When I said that Dune's intention to bow out of this thread has a much truth to it as Phoenix being the 5th largest city, I meant that it would happen one day, but hasn't happened yet.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Tell us why guns, which have never been responsible for more than a hundred or so deaths in the UK, are banned ( after 1 guy killed 16 people ) yet you don't feel the same need to ban cars or alcohol, which combine to kill many thousands a year?
You might say that guns have no redeeming values or legitimate use. Same would apply to alcohol. Then you may argue that alcohol itself cant kill someone.... the same applies to guns and cars.
OK, I will.
I've already explained about guns.
On cars - we used to have about 5000 deaths a year until the wearing of seatbelts became mandatory on 1st January, 1983. At that time, the numbers dropped to about 3000. Still bad, and still more than the number of people killed by guns, but that's because we have gun control laws that work - even if they don't work perfectly.
But cars have a legitimate use. We could not survive without private transport in the modern world, wherease we can (and do) survive without guns. That is why cars are not banned. On guns, we take the view that a gun has only one purpose - to kill. Anyone who wants to do recreational shooting can, but we're never going to have a guns free-for-all.
Alcohol, in limited quantities, is actually good for you. Wine is even served in hospitals! Last time I was in, I had a glass of Chardonnay with my dinner. Hehe - it sure as hell wasn't an NHS hospital - lol. And red wine is served (two glasses a day) at one particular hospital treating heart patients, where the value of red wine is recognised. We saw the folly of banning alcohol when America tried it during the Prohibition - biggest fillip that organised crime ever had. Sometimes America tackles problems the wrong way.
So far, we have folks in this thread representing England, Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Bermuda, Canada and Hong Kong - all happy with their (relatively) gun free environments.
And a US tard who has created an ID just for the purpose of spouting in this thread.
-
Tsk tsk tsk...what a thread.
Although there have been some recent shootouts in the UK, some resulting in death, the British have a long way to go to match the Americans in that sector.
Conclusion: Gun law works, - but nothing works perfectly.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So far, we have folks in this thread representing England, Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Bermuda, Canada and Hong Kong - all happy with their (relatively) gun free environments.
And a US tard who has created an ID just for the purpose of spouting in this thread.
So this thread was started last month? I didn't notice it.
You are saying that the people from those countries are happy with their gun laws, yet I am a "tard from the US" for being happy with our gun laws?
All I was pointing out was that in the UK, you have NEVER had more than a hundred deaths a year, according to you. So then after the hanguns were banned in the knee-jerk reaction to one person killing 16 others (1996?), has the annual death rate gone down?
Contrary, the death rate has not gone down and gun related crime has gone up. So I asked what you believed the gun ban has accomplished .
-
Ya know... I know a few limey's that live here now (my grandfather was born in Scotland) and they all own firearms.
they seem to like em.
lazs
-
Took me all of 5 posts to figure it out, but I recognise the phraseology, and his persistent manner in which he repeatedly asks me personally why the UK banned handguns. I've already given answers. But he keeps coming back. And that leads me to believe that Godzilla = NUKE. Reason for the new ID? Well he knows he's a life member of my ignore list as NUKE... but there's always room for one more.
Thanks, Angus. So now the list of unarmed countries with folks happy about it extends to England, Wales, France, Spain, Iceland, Bermuda, Ireland, Canada and Hong Kong.
-
Replicant: What on earth has that got to do with owning guns?
You said that if the people try to defend themselves, they will be in more danger than if they don't. So I am just asking why not-defending from criminals is good while not defending from foreign invaders is bad?
I cannot understand that some people in the US cannot understand that guns are not part of the UK culture and no matter what people say we're not suddenly going to say 'we all want guns' because it's never going to happen.
You are blatantly ly.. er.. misrepresenting the state of affairs. You pesonally may have a "no guns culture" but other people do not have guns not because of their culture but because they are prevented by restrictive law.
You could say that you as a country have a prevailing "no guns culture" if the ownership of guns was not restrictied and people were still not buying guns. The issue is not that all people in UK would not say 'we all want guns' - minority of gun-crazy amricans owns guns either. The issue is that those who say 'we personally want guns' may not get them in UK.
As it is, you do not have a "no guns culture". You have an oppressed serf culture. Any other culture is what you are allowed to have by your overlords. (Not that US is that much different, but at least we have more people not deluded as to our real serf status.)
It used to be we had a "slave culture" in US. Guess what happened when the slavery was repealed - very few former slaves chose to continue serving their masters - despite previous assurances that it was their choice and beneficial for them and society.
Whereas in the US people have grown up with guns, if guns were suddenly made legal in the UK it would be catastrophic and like I said earlier I simply wouldn't trust anyone with one!
yeah, right. We freed slaves and look what happened... :rolleyes:
miko
-
You said that if the people try to defend themselves, they will be in more danger than if they don't. So I am just asking why not-defending from criminals is good while not defending from foreign invaders is bad?
Criminals tend to take things and leave, and there is then an option for police to try to recover the goods and punish the criminals.
Invading armies tend to stick around, and nobody is likely to track them down, punish them and force restitution.
Of course, in some situations, the reverse is true, for example Kuwait.
-
Miko2D -
You pesonally may have a "no guns culture" but other people do not have guns not because of their culture but because they are prevented by restrictive law.
[/b] If you're talking about the UK, that's bollocks. And looking at the remarks made by cyrano, straffo and curval, it would be bollocks if you were talking about Spain, France or Bermuda.
-
I can confirm that it is indeed bollocks from my perspective.
-
Bollocks was the word I learned first when going the London the 1st time :)
And I confirm what Beetle and Curval said : the less gund there is in my vicinty the more I feel secure.
I was myself a shooting addict before having kids and I obeyed my father rule : no gun at home .
-
so if all the people in all the countries mentioned have no use or want for firearms....
then why ban em? I mean if nobody wants em why bother to ban em? Or could it be that the people who are responding to this thread from other countries are just girly men frieghtened of an inatimate object?
"Some men get turned on by women, some men get turned on by cars, some men get turned on by guns! "
and some by all three.... at the same time or seperate. Still... nothing beter than a hot car full of guns and hot women. Unless of course..... you are a girly man...
lazs
-
Here's an interesting set of figures for the "you're safer with a gun" crowd:
UK (where the cops are - I believe - mostly unarmed)
No police officers were seriously injured on duty by firearms during 2001/02. Ten officers had slight injuries.
There have been no fatal injuries to police officers by a firearm since 1995.
Source (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb103.pdf)
US
Law enforcement officers feloniously killed in 2001 with a firearm: 61
(3 with their own weapon)
Law enforcement officers accidentally killed in 2001 with a firearm: 5
Law enforcement officers Injured by firearms in 2001: 213
Law enforcement officers feloniously killed with a firearm since 1995: 332
(25 with their own weapon)
Source (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2001leoka.pdf)
-
Hehehe... I notice nobody really wants to answer these questions about life in G.B. :
1) Have there been no schoolroom massacres since the gun ban?
2) Have there been fewer deaths per year every year since the gun ban?
3) Were the bobbies allowed to carry firearms before the gun ban?
4) Can bobbies carry firearms now?
MiniD
-
I think it's even simpler and (to me) a view of the future of the US.
England has a gun culture; they've plenty of folks that hunt and target shoot and "talk guns" and enjoy them. I've met some of them. I've shot with some. I've hunted with some of them. At the noon break, they asked me how different it was from my US hunting.
My comment then and now, is that I could take anyone of them to the Kansas pheasant opener and they'd fit right in. They hold the same views about life (really), they talk about gundogs in the same way, they talk hunting the same way, they joke the same way. The only real difference that would make them stand out is the different accent.
However, England also as a far more developed and powerful "urban" political base. The Urbans clearly control the governmental machinery in England. That's why they have these laws.
It's what I see coming for us in the US as well. You have only to look at the Bush/Gore "vote by counties" map to see the delineation. Rural areas... gun areas.. clearly went for Bush. Urban areas.. no-gun areas.. clearly went for Gore.
And which population is growing at the fastest rate? Urban, by far and away. In fact, rural populations are shrinking in a lot of states.
So, when the Urbans finally have the clear majority here, we'll follow England's path, I'm fairly certain.
That's what happens when folks that think chickens grow up boneless and skinless on a plastic-wrapped styrofoam plate get their hands on the controls of the nation.
I doubt there'd be that many drive by shootings if the Urbans had the up front and personal experiences with death that are a natural part of rural life. Farm kids KNOW you can't call a bullet back and that it WILL land somewhere. They know what happens when that bullet hits flesh, too. The Urban kids KNOW that it works just like they show it in a Hollywood movie. Big difference.
Just my .02. But I think we're headed for the same Urbanization of thought that brought about the present situation in England and other places.
Thankfully, I've studied on it and I'll either be dead or have long since quit going afield by the time I figure this will happen.
:D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and some by all three.... at the same time or seperate. Still... nothing beter than a hot car full of guns and hot women. Unless of course..... you are a girly man...
lazs
I've my own phallus and I don't feel the need to have a phallic symbol/substitutes near me to feel confortable in such circumstance.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so if all the people in all the countries mentioned have no use or want for firearms....
then why ban em? I mean if nobody wants em why bother to ban em? Or could it be that the people who are responding to this thread from other countries are just girly men frieghtened of an inatimate object?
Well lazs, we don't need guns around here because the local nutjobs don't have 'em because they can't get 'em. So why ban 'em? Because we want to keep it that way. :D I'm not concerned about how gun control laws affect me in the sense of what weapon I can and cannot have. But I'm VERY concerned about how gun control laws limit the guns that the local villains and nutjobs can get hold of. That's the difference - and something that Miko2D is still struggling to understand.
-
Hehehe... I notice nobody really wants to answer these questions about life in G.B. :
1) Have there been no schoolroom massacres since the gun ban?
Not that I know of. I think there have been attempted knife attacks by a couple of psychos, but they may have been before the virtual ban on handguns.
2) Have there been fewer deaths per year every year since the gun ban?
The murder rate went down, and stayed below the pre "ban" level for four years, before passing the 1995 figure in 2000 (iirc)
Neither the fall or rise has much to do with the tighter controls on handguns, they were controlled very tightly anyway.
3) Were the bobbies allowed to carry firearms before the gun ban?
They are not "allowed" to carry firearms. Guns are issued on the authorisation of a senior officer, when circumstances demand, to officers who have recieved specialist firearms training.
A normal policeman didn't carry a gun on routine work. Certain officers, for example diplomatic protection, airport security etc have always carried guns.
4) Can bobbies carry firearms now?
The situation is the same as before. There are more specalist firearms teams, and more armed response vehicles (guns locked in the car, ready to deploy to a firearms incident at short notice), and because of the terrorist scares even more armed security at airports. The basic principles are the same, however, and in the deprived urban area where I live, I have still never seen an armed policeman.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so if all the people in all the countries mentioned have no use or want for firearms....
then why ban em? I mean if nobody wants em why bother to ban em? Or could it be that the people who are responding to this thread from other countries are just girly men frieghtened of an inatimate object?
"Some men get turned on by women, some men get turned on by cars, some men get turned on by guns! "
and some by all three.... at the same time or seperate. Still... nothing beter than a hot car full of guns and hot women. Unless of course..... you are a girly man...
lazs
You ask a fair question. Why ban them? I can only speak from my "neck of the woods" as guns were banned in 1970, or 1971 when the governor was shot, along with his aide de camp and his dog. :(
Since then..no guns.
There has been gun related crime though...with illegal weapons.
Maybe 2 or three cases in the last twenty years.
I'm willing to suggest that making guns legal here would increase that number.
One thing is for sure...there would be an increase in accidental gun deaths and injuries. Not one ever here since 1970...at least none that I know of.
-
I believe poverty and other social factors are the primary causes of crime. That and sure, the laws themselves could be a conduit for a crime infested or low crime rate society. I also believe genetics has a part in it and in violent tendancies as a final solution for an individual as is the circumstance (see above).
Still I feel safer in a society with guns (with some regulation of course). A person or persons is less prone to commit a crime with a gun if it is registered. If he does, hes easier to track and catch. In a society where guns are not legal and a criminal obtains one, then he has a distinct advantage in that society. Just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
I believe poverty and other social factors are the primary causes of crime.
There is some evidence that the primary causes of crime are also the primary causes of poverty.
ra
-
Call me paranoid, but the biggest issue I have with gun control in Australia has not a lot to do with weather or not the crims can still get guns, its the fact that the Aus Govt. DESTROYED the weapons we handed in.
Considering we have relatively small defence/armed forces, it would have made a lot more sense to me if they had banned private ownership, collected all the weapons handed in, packed 'em in grease, and stuck them all in a big storage facility in the desert somewhere.
That way, if we ever needed them, it would just be a matter of handing them out again, as it is now, if we suddenly find ourselves as a nation in need of a lot of weapons, we have to either manufacture some, or import them.
I am licenced to own and keep firearms, and to carry concealed weapons while at work, so it really hasnt affected me that much, except I had to hand in all my semi auto rifles ( really, they were novelty weapons anyway, more fun than practical, as a general rule, bolt action rifles were allways a wiser choice for hunting etc.) But I would be far more comfortable knowing that should the need arise, a good percentage of our population could be armed with effective weaponry.
Consider allso that we are firmly and overtly allied to the United States, and that given the current world affairs, America and her allies are not the most popular folks with the Muslim people of the world. Now have a look at a map, and see where Indonesia is in relation to Australia. Thats right, we live on the doorstep of the largest Muslim population in the world, they outnumber us by about 100/1 .
All I can say is thank God for the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and the fact that the US send big arsed fleets of warships full of gung-ho Marines down here fairly regularly.
If I am just being paranoid, why is the ADF screaming for more funding to upgrade their equipment? Can anyone tell me that given current world affairs, there is no possibility of Australia needing her Armed Forces for her own defence?
I dont think so, and it sure would be nice to know that those 100000 or so FN-FALs, M16s, AKs, SKKs, BARs, M1s etc were safely stashed away ready for use if needed, instead of knowing they are now just metal filings and woodchip.
If the world wasnt chock full of people who blindly hate the US, her Allies and Western culture in general, maybe I would feel differantly, sadly, it is.
I may be wrong, but I think you will find that a lot of Americans stand by their right to keep and bear arms for reasons of national security more so than domestic security., something I wholeheartedly agree with.
Blue
-
I doubt very very much having a stockpile of rifles in the desert is much a national defence strategy. That and the masses of muslims teeming to the north don't have much in the way of a navy capable enough to invade, and then successfully supply an army assuming it was able to hold on to a usable part of the north.
I think the idea of arming the nation for fear of invasion is largely a naive idea.
Proper investment in the ADF is a far more realistic strategy
Tronsky
-
I agree that as a plan, it sux, but would rather know that they are there and not need 'em, than need them and not have any.
I'm not talking this year, next year or five years from now, but more ten, twenty, twenty five, fifty years. You do know we have things like tanks, artillery and aircraft that are out of date stashed away in exactly the same manner, for exactly this reason?Why did they destroy all those perfectly serviceable smallarms then, smallarms that cost them far more than market value to 'purchase'? Cost effective planning has sweet Fanny Adams to do with it, plainly. It was a hurried and rash decision made in the glaring media spotlight of post Port Arthur teeth gnashing.You think the same would have happened if the Sep 11 WTC incident had happened beforehand, not after?
The Indos dont have much of a Navy eh? Nor did the Japanese in 1941 according to popular opinion, and their naval aircraft were a joke . Hate to tell you this , but popular opinion was wrong, and while we're on the topic, WE dont have all that capable a navy if it came to defending our entire coastline either.
How do you reckon their rather sizeable armed forces move about the islands that make up their nation? Maybe they use all those Russian aircraft they have that outclass our own , I dunno.
Why has the ADF based it's tactics and strategies on a conflict with our immediate neighbours, if indeed there is no possability of such a conflict occuring? I certainly hope our Govt isnt thinking "Nah, their Navy sux, they cant even get here"
Man, we cant even stop boatloads of starving refugees, let alone an agressive force.
All Im saying is that it was stupid to destroy the weapons handed in, maybe Im way of track, and Australia will never be threatened, God I hope so, but if it ever does happen, wouldnt you rather the Govt handed you a 20~50 year old, second hand but perfectly serviceable wepon, than, say, a broomstick?(which if it happened tomorrow would be about all they could get until the Yanks sent down some hardware)
Oh, and if you think they ADF is receiving proper or even realistic investment, Id love to know what makes you think so. I agree, it would be a far more workable idea, but it sure isnt happening right now, and hasnt happened for 50 years or more. The only thing that has enabled us to maintain security with such a poorly equiped and undermanned Defence Force is our allience with the US. It's why we sent forces into Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and God knows how many other places with the Americans, even when the majority say 'no war' ,we are reliant on that alliance, and every PM so far has known it, and acted accordingly.
All this is way off topic though :) Sorry Rip
-
I don't think the ADF is properly funded at all. Our defense spending is very low (% GNP) when compared to the major Nato nations, but is still higher than our neighbours however.
Australian forces have historically always been far more successful than their usually small deployments should allow, and so it's small size should never be underestimated.
But it could be often better served by consolidating it's assets in Australia, instead of being continually moved from theatre to theatre.
It is our reliance on ANZUS that has lead to our block obsolescence problems in the ADF in the first place, and considering the liberal govts. insistance on following the current American adminstration's shortsighted strategies will only further strain the ADF.
Tronsky
-
Wooo hoo! just one more post and we got another 100 post Gun thread!
(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/bigun2.gif)
-
Are you sure?
-
LOL... you guys crack me up... you would allow burglars to victimize you while you are in you own home... the streets filled with pickpockets and thugs and the strong bullying the weak... plus... have your government armed and you not.... just so you cluld save a bunch of criminals from shooting themselves and maybe the occassional civilian shooting of the law abiding by some nut... you would give up your right to defend yourself for this pissant little bit of so called security?
girly men... frieghtened little children and women... Scared of guns... sheesh. Next you will be scared of cars and then your own noodle.
unfortunately... Toad is probly right... the women will be running this country soon enough. population is the problem and pretty soon mommy will be telling us what we need to do for our own good.
lazs
-
As night follows day, Laz.
When the Urbs control the elections, and they're not far from it, personal freedom in general is going to take a hit. Nannyism is strongest in the urban areas, weakest in the rural.
Allow me to generally allegorize :) :
Urbs think a guy that cuts off his thumb carving a steak with a sharp knife should be entitled to sue the knife maker, the cook, the restaurant and the waitress. After that, they want government regulations to make knives "safer".
Rurals read that same story and laugh their tulips off that some moron can't handle his knife at the dinner table.
Like I said, just be glad you and I are old pharts that won't live to see it in full bloom. Cripes, it's bad enough as it is!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Urbs think a guy that cuts off his thumb carving a steak with a sharp knife should be entitled to sue the knife maker, the cook, the restaurant and the waitress. After that, they want government regulations to make knives "safer".
Rurals read that same story and laugh their tulips off that some moron can't handle his knife at the dinner table.
Like I said, just be glad you and I are old pharts that won't live to see it in full bloom. Cripes, it's bad enough as it is!
Hehehehe!
-
Yep... but.... It's a big country. Some concession will allways be made for the urbs... some enclaves will allways exist toad. I am an opptomist...
england is a poor example... they are citified to the bone. they live shoulder to shoulder and have learned to like it.
I allways feel out of place in large cities after a few days... they all seem so dirty and worn out and desperate and needy.
The choices available in the cities are not the choices that do anything for me... least not more than occassionally.. the day to day life style is depressing to me and claustrophobic.
Mostly all the city girly men think they will get laid if they act like women in thier views... they are probly right but it is too high a price in my opinion.
Men are meant to go fast and shoot guns and breed. They aren't meant to live in cubicles and drink in bars with women in suits. or ride in taxis.
When you are frietghtened of firearms or fast cars then you know you have gone over the edge... you are indeed a girly man. Huddle on up with the rest of your girly man friends and vote for less rights... or... just ask your woman boss what to vote for and cut out all the pretension.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
england is a poor example... they are citified to the bone. they live shoulder to shoulder and have learned to like it.
lazs
They're just already at the place we're heading.
They already have their enclaves as you predict for us. And the folks in those enclaves are pretty much like you and I.
So, not ALL of them are like... well, you know. :rofl
-
England isn't so bad. You should visit it sometime Toad. You failed to escape the 19th century themepark that's all, which is a shame.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
England isn't so bad. You should visit it sometime Toad. You failed to escape the 19th century themepark that's all, which is a shame.
Yeah, I was walking round Windsor one morning last month, when this Yank came up to me and asked how to get to the main entrance of the Castle. As I was giving him directions, the 1045am Concorde flew overhead and drowned out what I was saying, so I had to tell him again. He thanked me, and I said NP - hope you enjoy your visit. And he said "sure, but why the hell did they have to build it so close to the airport?". :lol
:rofl
-
Dowding,
I'll wager I've spent far more time in England than you have in the US.
In your major airports, in the cities that those airports server, at military fields out in your countrysides, in the small towns and villages that surround those airfields (and in the local pubs) and most recently down in Devonshire at a Shooting Estate for nearly a week.
Themepark experience? If you say so, I guess.
-
Oldest joke in the travel industry Beet.
Used it hear it most often when flying over the big meteor crater out west.
"Nice motel there, but that meteor almost hit it!"
Hah, hah.
-
Am I claiming far reaching knowledge of US demographics, social trends etc etc? Nope.
I'll wager I've spent more time in this country than you, though, and your descriptions of it, however they might add grist to Lazs' particular grindstone, seem uninformed.
Besides, England is a badly-roofed themepark according to Lazs - and I bow down to his expertise. Afterall, he actually visited once.
-
Well, chum, I'm reasonably familiar with your gun laws.
I've read the "urban" pov here and talked to a few English folk that live in your cities about guns and "nanny" items/agendas.
I've talked to quite a few English rural folks and heard their ideas on guns and "nanny" items/agendas.
Interesting sidelight, during the windup to OIF, I was in Devon and we all chatted about going into Iraq. VASTLY different viewpoint from those English folk than what I read here from the more urban English folk.
The short version is "What took you Yanks so long? Go get it done."
In short, I see the same split between conservative and liberal ideologies that shows in the US electoral map of Bush/Gore votes by county.
That's what I see, based on my experience.
I suppose you'll tell me that I'm sadly misinformed. In England it's actually the rural folks screaming for more gun control/confiscation? Just like here in the US?
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oldest joke in the travel industry Beet.
Used it hear it most often when flying over the big meteor crater out west.
ROFL, Toad! :D Yeah, I knew YOU would have heard it, but the old ones are the best. Besides, I bet Lazs hasn't heard it. ;)
Our airports, huh? London has five, but as far as I'm aware, ToadAir flies/flew only to LGW... tell us more about where you've been, military bases etc. Were you ever at USAF Upper Heyford?
-
Toad,
I think Dowding was probably nursing a hangover on your most recent post of your visit in England. Oh, he would have loved the pics of you and your group hunting quail with "real live shotguns" ;)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=77369&referrerid=3203
Too bad the pics are no longer available, those were some great shots.
-
he woulda shivered and wet himself.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
he woulda shivered and wet himself.
lazs
Lazs! I'm looking forward to shooting your guns in Dixon shortly. What with my little girly hands, and never having fired a real gun before, I shall come as a wuss and leave as a m.. er, well not quite a man, but maybe a teen salamander. ;)
Where's Godzilla then? yoo-hoo... Godzilla? Perhaps he responds better to his "real" ID of NUKE...
-
Gatwick, Manchester, Mildenhall, Upper Heyford, Lakenheath. Plus a few I visited for pleasure, like Plymouth.
All told, I've spent a reasonable amount of time in Jolly Olde.
Shannon and Dublin just across the way, too. Didn't make Scotland yet though.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs! I'm looking forward to shooting your guns in Dixon shortly. What with my little girly hands, and never having fired a real gun before, I shall come as a wuss and leave as a m.. er, well not quite a man, but maybe a teen salamander. ;)
Where's Godzilla then? yoo-hoo... Godzilla? Perhaps he responds better to his "real" ID of NUKE...
I might pay for a picture of you shooting a decent handgun ...... You might find you like it, then you may become all conflicted and junk :)
-
So Rip, is that enough 'splaining for one week?
Keep your answer brief. If yes, enter CTRL+C. If no, enter CTRL+V.
Godzilla - so why the need for a new ID? Why hide behind a fake ID? What was wrong with "NUKE"?
-
Beet1e is James Bond.:D
Les
-
yep beetle.. you will find that it is simply... fun.
Yesterday the head engineer on the project had to speak before the city officials and then latter to a citizens group. He was a little tense after he spoke to us and had about an hour or so to kill before the presentation to the citizens committee.
To kill the time he wanted to go with me out to the project. He was really wound up and distracted. I asked him if he wanted to relieve some tension and.... after esxplaining that no, I was not coming on to him... I asked him if he wanted to shoot some handguns out at the project... He had only rented a gun, a glock, one time and didn't know anything about em but wanted to try..
I had the Dan wesson 44 that needed to be shot and we also grabed the Kimber and the little James bond gun the PPK in .32.
I spent the time showing him gun handling and watching him and.... taking ictures of him in suit firing these weapons.
He was babling the whole time between actually shooting and all the way back... He said he felt like a new man and had no stress at all.
must be worth sumthin..
lazs
-
Shotguns are soothing as well:)
-
well... we set up a bunch of tiles against the bank... they make good "reactive" targets.... they explode and send pieces 10 foot in all directions... this has a very soothing effect on the male of the species... it seems to work on most females also.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Beet1e is James Bond.:D
Lazs, do you still have that Walther PPK available? I prefer it to the Beretta, but don't tell M!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs, do you still have that Walther PPK available? I prefer it to the Beretta, but don't tell M!
Slightly OT:
The Walther PPK has two claims to fame; one is that 007 uses it, the other is.......?
-
Originally posted by ra
Slightly OT:
The Walther PPK has two claims to fame; one is that 007 uses it, the other is.......?
Dunno...used to kill Archduke Ferdinand?
-
Hitler shot himself with a gold plated one.
lazs
-
Oh... and a whole lot of "undesireables", men women and children were shot in the back of the head with em in WWII.
They are pretty accurate guns really but back in the sixties guys used to joke that "how accurate they gotta be for head shots at 2 feet?"
the PPK is a great gun with a very bad rep.
yes beetle... It is in the safe 10 feet from me this very moment...you can shoot it to your little hearts content. while you are here. When you go home you are on your own.
lazs