More Gun control???

[DJ111]

"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil"

[Nashwan]

That comment from Lazs is illuminating. Leaving aside the Black/White issue which has connotations of racism. I think it's as much to do with issues of class for the sake of a better word. I would venture to suggest that poor whites are in fact as likely as poor blacks to be involved in gun crime. I doubt if middle class blacks shoot many people.

Exactly. It's something Lazs doesn't seem to want to accept, but the poor, particularly the urban poor, committ far more crimes than other groups, whatever race they are.

When Lazs talks about rmoving blacks from the statistics, and comparing what's left to figures for other countries, what he is in effect saying is that removing the "criminal class" from America, the remaining population is no more likely to committ murder than any other country, if you include the other countriy's criminal class.

ie remove most of the high crime group from America, and the remaining, far more middle class group, will commmitt the same number of murders as another country's average.

Even that's not tru, of course, FBI figures show the US white population has a murder rate double the UK's average.

I should think if someone had been trying to manipulate the US figures 150 years ago, they would try to remove the Irish, as they were the previous group that occupied the lowest social class. (No offence meant, it's the fate of all large scale immigration, I should think.)

Guns don't kill people, bad housing, poor education and poverty kills people. Maybe the NRA could seek to help improve society as a whole. Even here in Ireland with strong gun control we a small gun crime problem. The same type of people are involved. The underclass, the badly educated and ignorant. It has to be the same everywhere.

Yes. The figures in Britain show London has 15% of the England and Wales population, nearly 50% of the gun crime. And I doubt many of the rich City types are involved, which must push the proportion of the underclass involved up even more.

Guns are a red herring in my opinion.

I don't think they're a red herring. They are the cause, either.

Guns are a tool. They're a very effective tool for killing people. If you let criminals carry guns, a lot more people will get killed.

The statistic I keep coming back to is robbery. You are more likely to be robbed in Britain, you are far more likely to be killed during a robbery in America.

About 75% of people killed during a robbery are killed with guns.

Guns make it easier to kill, they make it much more likely you will kill in a panic, or inadvertently.

I was convinced some time ago by Lazs and others arguments that gun control does not in fact work. As in it only controls the guns of law abiding citizens.

Does it though? If I wanted a handgun to committ a crime, I wouldn't know where to start, and I'd probably end up getting robbed by some shady character in a pub when I approached him about buying one.

Would you know where to buy a handgun if you wanted one?

I don't believe you like firearms at all... It would appear that you don't even like people by your statement that you don't trust even neighbors with guns.

I didn't say my neighbours. There's nobody on my street I would worry about being armed, but then it's a fairly small street.

I know a man who sniffs petrol and hangs upsidedown from a bus stop, shouting abuse at people. I'd rather he wasn't armed. My car was broken into a couple of times a year or two ago, I'm glad when I ran outside I didn't have to worry if the scum had guns.

you didn't look at the FBI data very well... TOTAL murders in the U.S in 2002 were 14,054 "total murder victims from table 2.13

No, the FBI don't include all murders in this "total". It doesn't include certain jurisdictions, Some police forces that didn't supply any data to the FBI on time get assigned an estimated number. (And please don't say the true rate is then 14,000, because that will only be true of the known figures, and I think the FBI have a fairly good idea of what will be happening in the small number of areas that haven't reported that year)


Download http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf

Go to page 19

An estimated 16,204 murders took place in 2002.

of that..... 66.7 were committed with all types of firearms (table 2.9) for a total of..... 9,374 (just as I said)

Only if you ignore the true figure of 16,204 that the FBi say were murdered in 2002.

If you assume 66.7%, ie assume the same proportion of the murders not in that table were committed with firearms, you get 66.7% of  16,204, or 10,808

of that... about 3000 of the firearms murderers were white 3100 black and the rest minority and unknown. This from table 2.8 keeping in mind that the table shows a total of all homicides so must be reduced to 66.7% as per table 2.9

Lazs, I was responding to your quote:

!/3 of the total homicides by whites does not equal 5500 as you say later... and.. if 1/3 of the known homicides are by whites then why would half of the unknown be by whites? wouldn't it be at most, 1/3 also?

Total homicides, not firearms homicides

now.... table 2.8 shows that about 13% of all whites murdered are by blacks and 1% other and 1% unknown

it also shows that only about 6% of blacks were murdered by whites. Certainly... Whites have more to fear from blacks with guns than vice versa... more than twice as much in fact..

Lazs, I'm not interested in getting into a race debate with you.

table 2.13 also shows "circumstances" the "arguements" that you speak of is 3527 total homicides of which only 2330 (66.7% from table 2.9) not 4000 people shooting each other over the cat crapping on the neighbors lawn..

Lazs, a third of the people killed with firearms are killed in unkown circumstances. And that's just of 14,000 odd murders, not the true 16,204 total.

You are consistently ignoring unkowns and assuming they don't exist, like when you claim if someone is positively identified as white, he's white, but if his race isn't known, or isn't given, he isn't white.

in any case... the biggest portion of the homicides are committed during felonies. A good reason to be armed.

An even better reason to try to stop felons getting guns.

You have more chance of dieing in a gunfight than in a fistfight or robbery.

The fact remains that for a total of maybe 2500 whites killing people with firearms

2500? WTF did you get that number from.

According to the FBI:

Total murders 16,204

Whites 5356
Blacks 5579
Others 274

Known race murders = 11,204
Percent of know race murders who were white = 47.78%

Multiplying all murders 16,204 by known percentage of white murders 47.78% =

White murders = 5353

Percent of muders committed with firearms = 66.7%

Number of whites committing murder with firearm = 3570

you yourself admit that england has extremely high crime rates since their disarming of their subjects.

We've had rather high crime rates since the "liberal consensus" of the 60s sought to "understand" criminals and "rehabilitate" them rather than punish them, since it became all but impossible to punish children, even when they comiited crimes.

We've managed to keep out murder rate far below yours, though, by keeping the tools out of criminals hands

your figures don't add up. you claim anywhere from 12000 to 16000 homicides a year in the U.S. Then you give a figure of 9,369 identifiable homicides by firearms and then...

Where did I claim 16,000 murders in the US?

you are all over the map. which of your figures are we to believe?

All of them. They are accurate, and taken from the FBI figures.

I read about 8-9 thousand a year depending on year with 1/3 committed by whites that is not that many per capita... about like canada.

The figures are in the FBI statistics. All you have to do is look at the total figures, not just the subset the FBI has data for.

I am sorry that you can't trust your neighbors with guns... sounds pretty silly to me. They drive and use tools tho right?

The guy who hangs from the busstop has probably regressed past the tool using stage, and the ones I don't trust wouldn't use tools. Tools imply work, something they're rather keen to avoid.

Most tools are designed for a job other than killing people. Someone using an electric drill 50 yards away is not a danger to me, some idiot using a gun 50 yards away is.

you have to interact with em right?

YEs, although I try not to interact with some of them. the car thieves, junkies, etc.

I trust my neigbors with guns at least as much as I trust em to drive or do drugs.

If my neighbour is taking drugs, he's little danger to me. Unless he has a gun at the same time, that is.

It's not just their competence I trust, some are criminals who would use guns in crime. I've little doubt that handguns where I live would mean the odd drive by shooting, and a fairly vicious little gang war, which as you noted can lead to innocent bystanders getting killed.

[Nashwan]

I am assuming you are an American,therefore have an interest in const/ b.o. rights.

No I'm British.

You can relax, though, I'm not trying to take your guns off you. I can honestly say I've never written to a congressman, gun advocate, or indeed anyone, trying to get guns laws tightened, in the US or Britain.

he first admendment, first line says freedom of religion. then of course press and speach etc. The 2nd admendment amoung other things ,the right of the people, to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon.

This is the 2nd admendment that says this ,not the 4 or 8 or 188 etc.So it was important to the founding fathers of America to include this.Seems you all can pass laws at least until we get fedup with it to hinder ownership of guns.

I discuss guns, and what effect they have on crime, with people in an online forum. That's it. I'm not really interested in the US constitution, or what would need to be changed in the US to tighten the gun laws.

Congress shall pass no law...what part of this dont you understand?. And are you personally willing to accept the results of you all trying?

I'm not trying. I'm just discussing what I think the effects are on crime, and whether allowing such easy access to guns is wise or not.

I'd be too idle/apathetic to campaign against easy access to guns if I lived in the US, but I would buy a handgun or two, both for the fun of shooting and for self defence.

As I've said before, I liked Britain's gun laws up until the mid 80s, before the Hungerford massacre, when they banned semi auto rifles, and before they banned handguns after Dunblane.

The system used to be that if you wanted a gun, you could apply for a licence, which would be granted if you weren't a nutter or criminal, and had somewhere secure to store it, and the guns would be tracked, ie you could not sell them on unless it was to another licenced user/dealer.

[cpxxx]

Originally posted by demaw1
Cpxxx....comparing apples to oranges


   The problem is multi demensional.Remember,there are always exceptions to the rule.
   The problem is;
  1.The society has changed from a ten commandment ,personal responsabilty, and common sense society,  to a narcissistic, feel good [feelings]  I am a victim society. And DRUGS.

I can agree with that. The problem is the same the world over.

  2  I do not think there are any comparable western countries. Maybe in a way the balkins.
 Many countries have an immigrant population. So you are not unique

  3 I dont know the name of the city in Canada so I could be wrong. Never the less its minorites are not comparable to detroit.I know there has been a lot of tension between Quebec and British Columbia and thier societies are similiar.Their are many,many cities in America virtually crime free.  
 They did have a minority.  But what makes a Canadian minority less dangerous than an American minority? It is true about many if not most American cities being crime free. I know I have experienced it.
 
Canada may or may not have as many guns as America,I have thought they were much stricter. Maybe some one can help on that. Moore is wrong on everything including this about the media.
 I'm no expert on Canadian gun law either. But they like guns their too and can buy them easily enough

Lazs comment had connotations of racism, how so ? If there is a truth, in Ireland ,and you say it, is the person who says it, labaled as a [anything]?

I didn't actually say or imply Lazs comment had connotations of racism nor am I hinting that what he said is racist. I don't dispute the truth of it one way or the other.  Racism comes into it if you suggest the problem is basically caused by black people because  they are black. That is as bad as saying guns are the problem when basically it's a people problem whatever the hue.
  No, according to the fbi ,poor whites are not as likely to be involved in gun crimes as poor blacks. Yet, well off  whites, are more likely to be serial killers.
Poorness or otherwise may not be the issue. More it's marginalisation and ghetto mentality.  Any minority can suffer from that.
No, you forget ,many of the so called uneducated, under privileged people in  the US, are better off than most of the outside worlds middleclass.Existing around the edges of society is a European thing ,not American.  
 You mean your poor are better off than our poor?  It's all relative anyway,   and I feel you have an outdated view of European society. No one goes hungry anymore not least because of extensive social welfare systems.

  Bad housing, poor education,and poverty kills people?  Wow what an elitist point of view,yep you are from across the pond.
If that is true,explain to me the fact that the great majority of the uneducated and poor people in America cause no problems? The uneducated and poor helped build America. I grew up in an area that was lower middle class,we were poor, and guess what, since we didnt have everybody, and their uncle telling us,
we didnt know we were poor.

 We have a lot in common then. I grew up exactly the same way.  We didn't know we were poor either. No car, no vacations, no expensive toys. But we had a great time as kids.  Do not for heaven sake call me elitist.  I can't afford to be elitist. I don't get paid enough. I had to borrow money to get by this month. Rich I'm not.  But bad housing, poverty and bad education does kill people. Most of us get through it. Not everyone has the brains to do it though.

Law abiding citizens have always had the need for weapons to protect themselves. Those that didnt have them some where along the line ended up in a Russia,Germany,France[at time of revolution]  Sudan, well you get the point.
Well both the French and Russian revolutions were by the people just like America.  People with arms overthrowing the regime. It wasn't imposed on them from above. They fought for it.

Yes , What I said in 1st paragraph is the problem.

Nashwan said:
 

Does it though? If I wanted a handgun to committ a crime, I wouldn't know where to start, and I'd probably end up getting robbed by some shady character in a pub when I approached him about buying one.

Without implicating myself LOL. It could be done easily enough. I know I could get one without too much difficulty. It's really a case  of knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone. If you are a criminal you will undoubtedly know someone who knows someone. The point being that the only people who can get handguns these days are criminals and the only way to buy one is from a criminal. But  you do confirm my point about the lowest social class committing all the crime. The same is true everywhere. Not all of them just a minority. My further point being that it's not the guns that are the issue but the marginalisation.  Isn't it fair to say that in Britain much of the crime originates in the 'sink' estates populated mostly by marginalised white people? The only difference between Britain and America is wider availability of guns.

[demaw1]

Nashwan....assuming Amrican...

 Boy am I glad I said assuming,would have had egg on my face lol.
No problem now that I know you are British,I can say what the heck do you know about us ...lol nah just kidding.  Id like to maybe touch on a couple of points.

 I disagree with your take on your  fbi stats and agree more with lazs,and I have my own as guns are important to me.I thought it fair if you knew that.

 America was born different than other countries. We never had the, only nobles and army have weapons experence. Our founding fathers did ,that is why the 2nd add.

   And until oh the last 30 years we would fight at drop of hat to protect them. Since then at least 45 percent of Americans,[the left] have imbraced the european Idea of egalitarism and have foresaken tha idea of liberty.Sad but the too can not live together.

 Hence this fight about guns.

 I hope you would read my post to cpxxx ,the first part and see if it makes any sense to you,about the poor to.

Yes the urban poor do commit the bulk of crime, and yes that means a larger number of black and hispanics, with white poor coming behind these to groups. I didnt make this up it is fbi stats.
And dont forget this black crime is black on black mostly.So has very little to do with racism. I couldnt see where lazs was saying anything else.

I really think you missed on removing criminal class statement.He didnt say remove the whole group as a hole , he said remove the criminal class. There is a criminal class now because of what I said in other post. Remember I said most of black crime is black on black, then dont you think the great majority of law abiding blacks, hispanic,asian and white would like to have them removed?  Of course, I you did that, it would only take away a small portion of the poor.

Canada and most of you all on other side of the pond dont see the great diversity America has. Look at the Balkins and what they have done, they are probally the closest to us in that way.

 American whites do have double the rate of murders than the british. Yet do you not think, the fact we have what,, 175 million more white people, as compared to  your whole population, might have something to do with it? No we are not talking about removing a whole anything, he was just trying to level the playing field as I just did with population difference.

 We all know your quote; I dont want to get in a race debate with you was unfair. It is part of it,and part of the stats, nothing racist about it.

 guns make it easier to defend yourself in an exploding narcissistic
 society, and you cant stop felons from gitting anything they want .

  Now you say you have discussed this a lot ,here is something I bet you have never heard, and I cant wait to see the reactions.

   I am glad the punks at columbine had guns.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by cpxxx
The only difference between Britain and America is wider availability of guns.

That's not the only thing... they also drive on the wrong side of the street and don't speak English correct.

[Flash3]

Howdy All,
     
      I just spent the last two hours reading all three pages of this thread and I figured that I would comment on all of the things that stuck in head, so hear it goes.
     
      I don't know about all of these statistics on murder rates and violent crimes, (not really my bag), but I do know that most that are reported on T.V. and the radio are B.S. How many of those crimes involved crack heads killing crack heads? The way I see it they are doing me a favor. THANKS FOR KILLING THE CRACK HEADS!!!
     
      Kids and guns nowadays dont mix. Why? Lack of education. Yes I did grow up on a farm, (thanks for asking), and my mother has a wonderful picture of me shooting a .22 rifle for the first time at the age of four. My father of course was helping me out a bit. All of my friends were and are hunters and target shooters. Today instead of education parents decide to shield their kids away from anything "bad". Why is a firearm bad? It is only a hunk of metal, it cant think. So the person behind the trigger has to think for it. EDUCATION,EDUCATION, EDUCATION!!!
     
      Firearms are produced for things besides killing. Just so happens that those things sometimes make them better killing machines. Take a run-of-the-mill target rifle with a scope. As long as you drink your coffee in the morning, (tea for the British folk), It should not be a problem for a decent shot to hit a target or deer, (read person), at four-hundered yards. The firearm is capable of doing it, the person behind the trigger has to make the decisions. Remember firearms cant think.
     
      My list of currently owned firearms goes like this- Marlin .22 bolt used for targets and a rabbit or squirrel here and there, Vipper .22 Semi. used for targets, (not allowed to hunt with semi. autos in PA), Ruger 10/22 .22 for targets, .30/40 Krag Carbine bolt for my whitetail medicine, (90 years old and still one hell of a rifle), Savage .30/06 bolt that I usually loan to a friend for hunting, (2) 7.62 Russians that were my grandfather's, Sako .222 for groundhogs, Hawkens type .50 cal. muzzleloader for PA muzzleloader deer season, Yugo SKS 59/66, (with bayonet), for the hell of it, single shot .410, (first shotgun), Mossberg 500 12ga., Ithica Model 37 20ga. for all of my small game needs, (3) .22 revolvers, Colt King Cobra .357 mag., Jennings 9mm, (cheap but fires pretty dam good), and a Kimber .45 ACP, (main means of personal defense). Next on the list is an AK type of firearm just because they are fun and I want one. All of these firearms have a purpose to me in one way or another.

      MG34 machine guns are nice but do yourself a favor and get an M60. They are somewhat of a development of the WWII German machine guns with improvements. For God's sake take the M14 over the M16, and a tight .45 over the 9mm. I would not mind having a rocket launcher or a few grenades. The Forth of July would never be the same.

      I don't know alot about Britian, but the way I see it, they are over there and we are over here. Does not concern me what the crime over there is. Hell, most of the crime here does'ent affect me either because I am one of those people that live on the ranch. I do agree with the Europeans talking a bit to much but like I said, I do not know that much about the other side of the pond.

      I understand that people from different parts of the country or the world have different views on gun control. Thats fine, everybody can have their own opinion, just don't expect me to agree with it. Thats the great thing about being free, I DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. But the sad part is with gun control you are making me agree with you. Well screw that, give me back my forty round clips, I want to go destroy a cardboard box!

      Back to the kids one more time. If you have one then you firearms should be kept away from them. Not sitting half way off of a closet shelf. Even if they have been taught proper firearm safety. This applies to all people that have not been taught the correct way to handle a firearm, even if they are eighty years old.
 
      Just some things to think about.

[wrag]

Laz, all......  I think it's a mindset thing here.  I don't think this thread will produce much change in either mindset.  I've run into allot of people during my life that quite simply did not WANT to know the truth, or at least what I understood to be the truth.  In fact some of them got very angry at me for some of the truths I shared.  They admited later that I was correct but they did not like it.   Some people prefer a view point of life that, to me anyway, ignores basic reality.

I think the main problem here is understanding of our (American's) way of seeing things.

Granted I see more and more today the european mindset coming out of our young people, and too many of our older people.

Our FREEDOM is not based on the same things as the Europeans.  We don't need permission from anyone for our rights.  That seems to be changing but when I was young that was the basic view.

Another example was put forward by a judge in Mexico.  He said he expected anyone that cane before him to lie.  Even seemed proud of it.  In America Judge's expected about 50% of the people that came before them to tell the truth.  It used to be a issue of you got the rights respect em by accepting the responsibility for your actions words and deeds.  Now it's more of what can you get away with.  How much money can you make.  Etc...

That, I think, is the real issue.

Oh and has anyone yet addressed the issue of the grin?????

You know look in the mirror.  Smile or grin.  Start in the center and count 3 goin left or right.  What tooth is that??? It's a fang cause YOU ARE A PREDATOR.  
I don't care if you like it or not it's TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lazs2]

nash... read the figures again... in the ones that take all (total murders by all means) you have to reduce those numbers to 66.7 which is the total for ALL firearms murders.   reply to the figures I point out not different ones.

I will admit that the FBI data seems to contradict itself from time to time on total murders but the 66.7 figure is the only one mentioned.

As for the racial issue...  It is important only when people ask why we have so many murders in the U.S. and then try to blame a bunch of white folks in pointed hoods out shooting poor blacks out of fear as moore portrayed in "bowling"  When it is brought out that 15% of the population commits allmost 60% of the homidcides it becomes an important issue.

Whites and lawful blacks would seem to need to be armed more rather than less.

But.. no matter the cause... be it cap[italism or too much freedom or whatever... it exists and the fact that the more people who carry guns the less crime.  this is irrefutable.  

If you remove handguns you remove the largest deterent to crime.   The few unjustified homicides are so far outweighed by the millions of crimes a year prevented with handguns that to ban them would be like banning walking the streets because of people hit by meteorites while walking the streets.

In fact... one allways has to suspect the motives of those who would ban guns... those in england seem to have anm "elite" atttitude where only the upper class can be trusted with anything.  the peasants are too.... you fill in the blank.

America is different... the peasant you see today may be the part of the economic upper class the next.

do what you like to keep the peasant subject down in your country... it is your folly.. your crime goes up and your royalty tells you to eat cake.

lazs

[lazs2]

also... I will respond to the "I'm glad that the punks at columbine had guns".... I am glad too but I am sick at heart that no one else did... just as I was sickened about the luby Texas resteraunt incident where a madman killed peopl at will when several had guns in their car that they had left there because of a new city ordinance that prohibited guns in resteraunts.

I also believe that the difference is that Americans more than any people (especialy country ones) do not like to be victims.   Many europeans accept vitimhood... they pass laws to make it unlawful to defend yourself agains criminals... they make you the criminal...this has some positive effect.. the criminals feel no need to cause injury or death (most of the time) to make a point... in the U.S. the criminals are much more violent no matter  how they are armed.

nash feels it is unfair to remove the black or as he calls them "the  criminal class" from the stats... I think it is more than relevant to do so... it is a goal... you must make harsher penalties for committing crime with a gun while at the same time making it easier for the rest of the citizens (not subjects) to own and carry firearms.

What you then have is a very low firearms crime rate (non criminal class Americans seldome abuse firearms) and a well protected citizenry with normal human rights to defense.

Nash admits that only the criminals are the problem... Lott says this also and points out that the criminals will continue to be criminals no matter what... they may not be armed wioth firearms as much but they will continue to commit crime and.... with less deterent... you will have the runnaway crime that is in england and australia since their draconian gun bans.


I also think that flash represents the average American gun owner and thank him for his comments.  They have no idea of the numbers... they see the talking heads and know it is bull...  They know firearms are simply a valuable tool.
lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by TalonX
You are not an American, are you?

I think this strikes at the core differences.....    as Ben Franklin said.....you want security and are willing to give up freedom.

I am not.

Not American. What freedom am I supposed to have given up? I have never owned or needed a gun. Neither did my parents. Neither did any of my aunts and uncles. Neither did my grandparents.  I fail to see the correlation between gun ownership and "freedom", even though the correlation is made repeatedly on this board. I'm with Nashwan on gun ownership. I don't want to become a slave to a gun - I don't want to feel compelled to keep one, and the only reason to keep one would be if I felt threatened from outside. I do not feel threatened from outside because as Nashwan says, because guns are banned, it's very difficult for criminals to acquire them. Or at least it used to be. Britain isn't the best example of a gun free society any more. Bermuda where Curval lives is a better example of a society free from gun crime - and how to achieve that. Indeed, Bermuda has a freedom which America does not - freedom from gun crime. I would much rather have freedom of that sort than the freedom to purchase a piece of hardware...

...as for freedom, I don't see owning a gun as any more of a freedom statement than owning a car, a DVD recorder or a potato peeler. I mean - so bloody what???

Demaw said

Law abiding citizens have always had the need for weapons to protect themselves.

No-one in my family has ever owned weapons of any kind - and we're all law abiding!

[Toad]

A lot of that attitude has it's roots in the feudal constitutions, where one and the same law prohibited the rustici in general from carrying arms, and also proscribed the use of nets, snares, or other engines for destroying the game.

In short, England has no real tradition of public hunting. Thus it's not unusual that many feel no need for a gun and in fact have little if any knowledge of guns and hunting.

The US is quite different; here (once we threw the English out) game belonged to the public. Even on private land, public law determined game use. Hunting and guns have always been available to the common man and the tradition dates to before we were a Republic.

[beet1e]

So why the need for the second amendment? To guarantee hunting rights?

[Toad]

No. In 1789, it was to ensure the common man's use of arms.

I'm just saying that a lot of today's indifference to having or not having guns in countries like yours is because there is no real history of use of or right to arms by the common man. In fact, in those countries the common man was usually prohibited from owning/using arms.

[wrag]

Originally posted by beet1e
Not American. What freedom am I supposed to have given up? I have never owned or needed a gun. Neither did my parents. Neither did any of my aunts and uncles. Neither did my grandparents.  I fail to see the correlation between gun ownership and "freedom", even though the correlation is made repeatedly on this board. I'm with Nashwan on gun ownership. I don't want to become a slave to a gun - I don't want to feel compelled to keep one, and the only reason to keep one would be if I felt threatened from outside. I do not feel threatened from outside because as Nashwan says, because guns are banned, it's very difficult for criminals to acquire them. Or at least it used to be. Britain isn't the best example of a gun free society any more. Bermuda where Curval lives is a better example of a society free from gun crime - and how to achieve that. Indeed, Bermuda has a freedom which America does not - freedom from gun crime. I would much rather have freedom of that sort than the freedom to purchase a piece of hardware...

...as for freedom, I don't see owning a gun as any more of a freedom statement than owning a car, a DVD recorder or a potato peeler. I mean - so bloody what???

Demaw said  No-one in my family has ever owned weapons of any kind - and we're all law abiding!

There you go.  What is said above suggests the concept is NOT understood.  And the wording seems to indicate the concept is not wanted, nor felt needful (although tone of voice might indicate better).  Perhpas we should just allow ourselves to disagree???  Perhaps we are all being selfish???

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live."  Oscar Wilde Anglo-
Irish author.

There is actually no common base here.  No shared starting point.

It's very much like one is talking about apples and the other oranges.

Freedom is not OWNING or doing anything it's the ability to OWN or do things if you wish.  Whenever anyone says you can't own or do something that is when you become less free.

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free
to do then in what we are free not to do."  Eric Hoffer
American philosopher.

To someone like me .... IF you are willing to give others that much control over your freedom/liberty in order to FEEL safer then to us you are doing what B. Franklin refers to. You are giving up freedom/liberty for security and thus you deserver neither and will probably lose both.

I say FEEL because no matter what laws are made there are still individuals that ignore them and will do horrible things because they want to.  It could even be argued the ones doing the horrible things are actually more free then those they harm because they ignore the law or make it their own.


To me we live in a world of predators ...

"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely
municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I
believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good
manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men
that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy
except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on
the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist

..... Granted most have their instincts under very firm control.  Hey that's what's supposed to make us civilized isn't it? Yet there is always some that don't and probably don't want to.

No one ever claimed having freedom or liberty was SAFE.

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Anglo-Irish playwright, critic

True freedom means you are free to work or set and starve.  No one is required to feed you if you are healthy enough to work.

I could go on and on and on but see that we do not have a common base to discuss this from.  The viewpoints, the starting point, the basic approach to life held by each, for discussing this is not there.