Author Topic: No (more) guns please - we're British (Read 6455 times)

ra · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2004, 09:05:32 AM »

I think the figure for 2000-01 is 29, not 19. And that is England and Wales.

I think there are bars in the US that have a higher gun crime rate.

AKIron · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2004, 09:12:40 AM »

If the UN has it's way there will be no private ownership of guns and you can rest easy beet1e. This will have the added benefit of there being far fewer live Americans as many will be lying around with their cold dead fingers pried open.

Martlet · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2004, 09:29:56 AM »

What a racist article. Don't guns kill white people too?

Maverick · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2004, 09:34:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
75% of the population is stupid, clumsy or emotionally unstable.

This pretty much sums up the attitude of the typical anti gun person and government. IMO.

There is no need for the incapable to be able to handle adult responsibility. They must be protected from themselves since they are not able to be responsible for themselves.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2004, 09:42:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
I believe that 75% of the population is stupid, clumsy or emotionally unstable.

But you are not in that group, correct?

Thankfully the great unwashed masses have the superior, intelligent, chattering class people like you to guide, protect and make major decisions for them!!

Why are they not greatful????

beet1e · « **Reply #20 on:** October 18, 2004, 09:48:25 AM »

Nilsen - my brother's Jag. is a 2003 X-Type 2.5.

Dowding - yep, still driving my diesel - just had the first tax disc renewal. How time flies...

Gixer/Dowding - Yeah, Whitby was great. Also Pickering and Helmesley.

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
Ahem, Beet1e, this kind of article is really supporting Lazs's theory: with a strong gun control, the only armed guys are the bad ones (who don't follow the law anyway)... The article even points out that the only city to show a drop in gun crimes is London where more policemen are armed, know how to use their weapon and are not afraid to use them.

No. I said I had nothing against having an armed Police force. That's the way it is in most Euro countries, and most of those countries have very little gun crime, the reason being that handguns are not generally available to the public. What I DID say was that I am not in favour of arming the general public. That would lead to a much more ready supply of guns - either for purchase or by theft. We would then end up with a gun-related homicide tally of 3000/year - a similar proportion to certain other countries I could mention.

deSelys · « **Reply #21 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:10:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
This pretty much sums up the attitude of the typical anti gun person and government. IMO.

There is no need for the incapable to be able to handle adult responsibility. They must be protected from themselves since they are not able to be responsible for themselves.

Sorry Maverick, but I stand my ground. Look at the behaviour of your fellow citizens while driving, and tell me if they consistently act intelligently, competently and responsibly.

A gun is no joke, and its use is not to be considered lightly.

Quote

Originally posted by Grunherz
But you are not in that group, correct?

Thankfully the great unwashed masses have the superior, intelligent, chattering class people like you to guide, protect and make major decisions for them!!

Why are they not greatful????

I'm certainly not a genius, but I've been selected, I've been trained, and I've demonstrated that I can handle a weapon with the required safety, coolness and competence. So, in this field, I'm certainly above 75% of the population.

You should also have understood by now in which percentage band I consider you to be. Thank you for somewhat proving my point.

Added for clarification: this is about a concealed carry permit. For an ownership permit (at home and shooting at the range), the rules don't need to be so strict IMO.

Maverick · « **Reply #22 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:33:48 AM »

deSelys,

I agree with most of your post other than the 75% part. I don't share this feeling and I am offended that another group, beit private, public or government thinks they know better than I how to live. This includes what I should own or can be "trusted" with absent any wrong doing on my part. The mindset that is built on "I know better than you how to live your life" has in it the ability to seperate themselves from the same population whitout any reason for having done so. It violates the premise of innocent until proven guilty and all men are created equal.

Unless I decide to give authority to another to manage my life I feel I am best qualified to determine how I will live it.

Government is not based on granting rights but on restricting peoples actions. A government cannot grant permission, only restrict it. Using your example of driving, there is no "right" to operate a motor vehicle, this "priveledge" (government term) can be revoked and is done so based on misdeeds by the person whose license is in question, not on potential misdeeds. If you want to base permission or priveledges on potentiality then everyone is a potential murderer, thief or other criminal and therefore must be incarcerated for their own good. Now who is going to hold the key to the cell?

deSelys · « **Reply #23 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:14:12 AM »

Maverick,

Read again what I said. People who would pass the test would be granted the priviledge to carry a weapon. But the test would requires such skills and knowledge that it wouldn't be available to most.

A gun allows you to protect yourself or others, but by using it (or even showing it), you can harm innocent bystanders. I remember one of my first 'movie shooting' training (where your have to solve a scenario, not always with your gun) where the bad guy draws a wheelgun in a bar. I instinctively point and shoot...the movie stops still and the examiner shows me the background...crowded as hell. During a simple exercise, I had had a bad case of tunnel vision. It was a real eye opener (btw I missed the thug

. Had I reacted like this in RL I would have just caused a shootout in a crowded place).

Concealed carry should be accessible to a selected part of the law abiding citizens, like other licenses. For instance, do you think that, if the training was free and open to everyone, everybody could be a liner pilot? I don't think so, and I doubt I could become one.

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:26:53 AM »

thank you maverick... I think your attitude best describes the attitude of the police I know... I have the opportununity to talk to probly a hundred of them and they share your (and my) attitude about law abiding citizens.

deseleys is also correct in that in order to carry concealled I think that people should be made to demonstrate an ability to handle firearms safely and be aware of legal ramifications.

Other than that... there really is no problem since it has been demonstrated that only about 10% of the law abiding population will avail themselves of concealled carry no matter how enlightened the laws are.

Beet... are you saying that the criminals are not shooting more people because.... because they can't get guns? I would contend that they can get all the guns they want despite your laws but.... that the penalties for using guns are high in your country so only the most desperate use them... I think this is a good thing and would encourage the stricter penalties here.

more penalties for criminals using guns... less penalties for the law abiding owning and carrying (keep and bear) guns...

win/win

lazs

lazs

Dune · « **Reply #25 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:46:44 AM »

You know, I just had a thought that would make a great bumper sticker, "When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns."

I wonder why no one thought of that before.

NUKE · « **Reply #26 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:49:22 AM »

They do have those stickers

Steve · « **Reply #27 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:53:14 AM »

Hmmm 7 or 8 out of 9 are black in that ad. Lazs is right, Jessie Jackson would be up in arms, blaming white America for everything and calling the article racist.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:34:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
What I DID say was that I am not in favour of arming the general public. That would lead to a much more ready supply of guns - either for purchase or by theft. [/B]

What you have without it is a ready made business for organized crime and for the penny annie thug for the selling of illegal weapons.
By the way some people express their beliefs it comes clear that they have it in mind that criminals run down to Joe`s Shootem Up Gun Emporium to purchase the shootin irons. It just don`t happen like that .

Maverick · « **Reply #29 on:** October 18, 2004, 01:23:00 PM »

deSelys,

I am not disputing in the least the arguement you have regarding CCw and training. We are pretty much in the same area there.

What I am disputing is the 75% comment you made.

The second point is that 75% attitude is what most antigun folks have. People cannot be trusted to be responsible so therefore the government must protect them from themselves.

I find this to be repugnant. I do not see where a committee (a life form with multiple legs and no brain) is intrinsically better equiped to "protect" individuals from their own actions.