PDA

View Full Version : American Gun Laws


Pages : 1 [2]

Winston Smith
12th Jul 2001, 03:52
ocb,

The post you made about 24 hours ago shows that you probably understand more of what's going on than a lot of other posters. It appears that your statements are sometimes much more disturbing to some of them than they would admit. - On the other hand, I would like to beg you again to keep your religious beliefs out of at least those debates which have very little to do with metaphysics. Though I'm not a Christian, I do respect your convictions. After all, some people here cling to quasi-religious theories ("equality" and things) which are much more absurd in that they are clearly disproved by observation. So if you just stuck to "earthly" arguments your opponents would have a MUCH harder time "bashing" you.


boofhead,

you were quite right about "Dreamonland". Just look at GeneralAviation's location!

Davaar
12th Jul 2001, 03:54
Archery? A year or two ago a man murdered his wife in mid Ottawa, broad daylight, with a bolt from a crossbow.

old_cross_bound
12th Jul 2001, 06:54
Winston Smith,

Sorry to bother you with what I believe to be true but I am what I believe just as you are what you believe. It would be easier for you if you just ask me to exit the thread and not post since my beliefs make you so uncomfortable.

Back to the topic. For me, taking away guns from law abiding people due to the increased lawless murder rate in society makes about as much sense as casterating all males due to the increased lawless rape rate in society. Why do governments think they can legislate away their problems at the expense of liberty? They have the money from taxation to enforce the law so they should simply do their job without infringing on the liberties of those who are law abiding.

ocb

Winston Smith
12th Jul 2001, 13:41
ocb,

neither did I say you bothered me nor do your beliefs make me uncomfortable. On the contrary, I think much of the observations and deductions you make are quite cogent, which is why they are inconvenient to the self-proclaimed "liberals". I just suggested that you keep religious and non-religious matters a bit more separated so as to make it harder for them to dismiss your reasoning with a simple insult.

Kray
12th Jul 2001, 18:12
Wee WW

Quoted from you ---------------
Hungerford - a loner RAMBO fan takes his AK47 and walks around a small village shooting people at random. Eventually he shot himself when surrounded by police (late 80's). All automatic weapons banned. Its never happened again.

Dunblane - old man 'youth worker' weirdo walks into a primary school with hi scollection of semi-auto pistols and blasts away children and teachers at random (late 90's). All pistols banned. Its never happened again. AND IT NEVER WILL.
-----------------------------

Are you being deliberatly stupid, or are you just totally naive? Of course it can happen again. There is nothing that can ever be done to stop it hapening again. If a mentally unbalanced person decideds to kill a load of people, it will happen.

How many murders have there been since Dunblane where illegaly owned guns were used? The figure is in hundreds. You've said "It's never happened again". This is beacuse that individual nutter is dead, not because the legal ownership of handguns has been banned. No own can ever stop illegal ownership, which is now on the increase.

You've said "AND IT NEVER WILL". How can you be so stupid? I cannot understand what sane person can be so brash as to make a statement like that. Nothing stops someone heading out, to buy an illegal handgun and do the same again.

Drugs are illegal, however if I wanted some, I know who to buy then from. Guns are illegal, however if I wanted to buy one, I'm not sure who I'd ask and it would be harder to buy, but not impossible. The police estimate that a million extacy tablets are taken a weekend. That is 1 million illegaly owned items, hidden from the police and sold every single week. There are not remotely that many guns for sale, but the drugs example is good for demonstrating just how little control the police have over whats for sale on our streets.

Therefore WWW, before you come out with you next brash and totally incorrect and impossible statement, engage brain, don't be so naive and try the words, maybe, hopefully etc.

Wee Weasley Welshman
12th Jul 2001, 18:58
Kray - Dunblane and Hungerford occurred using legally held firearms. Under current law such weapons cannot be held nor, in the case of fully autos, even accessed at clubs.

As you summise the only recourse woul dbe to acquire such weapons illegally.

Fortunately this is very hard to do. Both the police and other security services operate entrapement operations in this field. The costs of illegal firearms is much much higher plus there is a high likelihood of detection.

Whilst not impossible it is a fact that it is much less likely to happen again now that the law has been changed.

I concede that shotguns and crossbows are very dangerous. However, I would much much rather take my chances in a crowded school room or open high street against a man with a crossbow/12 bore and a man with an AK47 or 5 fully loaded semi-auto high calibre pistols... WOULDN'T YOU?

Anyhow. This thread is pointless - the US won't be making any major strides in firearms controls and the deal is long done and dusted in the UK.

I am entirely content therefore with the status quo.

Cheers,

WWW

ps please make sure you actually read all my posts on this thread - a bleeding heart left wing liberal gun hater I ain't...

Kray
12th Jul 2001, 20:32
I suggest everyone who thinks that banning handguns and tightening the controls over them is the way to reduce gun crime, I suggest you read the Observer article linked below. 'The number of illegally held guns is estimated at three million, a third more than at the time of the 1996 Dunblane massacre'.

http://www.iansa.org/news/2000/dec_00/gun_crime.htm

old_cross_bound
12th Jul 2001, 22:04
Winston Smith

ocb,
neither did I say you bothered me nor do your beliefs make me uncomfortable. On the contrary, I think much of the observations and deductions you make are quite cogent, which is why they are inconvenient to the self-proclaimed "liberals". I just suggested that you keep religious and non-religious matters a bit more separated so as to make it harder for them to dismiss your reasoning with a simple insult.

***If I couldn't handle insults I wouldn't be here, that''s for sure. Even the insults serve a good purpose and I'm not offended.

***Anyone know where I can buy a tank?

trolleydollylover
13th Jul 2001, 02:22
WWW thank you for a note of sanity to the blind out there in cyber wonderland. It would seem that there are quite a few who live in their own blissful inward looking lives.

I did at one stage start to feel sympathy for the pro gun lobby and some of their circumstantial evidence. Since the thread has become awash with these lunatics, who have their arguments shot down (no pun intended) by the anti gun lobby by single short and concise posts, not long drivel about anti conspirocy theories and black helicopters. I would have to say that in the Northern Hemisphere in the 21st Century you arguments dont stand up.

It is great to see that there are some Americans who do believe the gun has had its day.

Before you ask I am no tree hugger, and mr wolf you are a prat.

old_cross_bound
13th Jul 2001, 02:51
trolleydollylover,

Since you brought up the subject of the lunatic, would you like for me to tell you what a lunatic really is?

:eek: ocb

Send Clowns
15th Jul 2001, 14:07
WWW

The weapon used in Dunblane was legally held only from the point of view that he had a licence. He should not, under the rules, have been issued that licence. Correct enforcement of the rules then in force would have prevented another such tragedy, so why bring in new rules?

Oh, and of the thousands of firearm crimes recorded in the UK every year, a number increasing since Dunblane, you give two cases of people who held firearms certificates, neither of whom should have been issued the certificates under the rules then in force. Not a very strong case, is it?

BTW if I seem to be arguing against both sides, I am in favour of gun control, not gun bans.

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: Send Clowns ]

old_cross_bound
16th Jul 2001, 04:43
Does anyone know what the statistics in Britain are concerning the public actually assisting the police in the enforcement of the law? Here we keep stats on how many police officer lives have been saved, during a crime in progress, by our well armed public.

PPRuNe Dispatcher
16th Jul 2001, 15:49
Due to the length of this thread I am closing it. Feel free to carry on the discussion in a new thread....

--PPRuNe Dispatcher