PDA

View Full Version : American Gun Laws


Pages : [1] 2

trolleydollylover
28th Jun 2001, 23:15
This thread partly pooks at OCBs comments in Slashers Thread "Not Again"

__________________________________________
"Here in Texas we have a armed society. A 9mm in each hip pocket and an AK47 behind every pick-up truck and car seat. A armed society is a very polite and respectful society.
We would be glad to welcome Slasher and his kind to Texas where we could rearrange some of their bad habits and give them all a major attitude adjustment."
__________________________________________

OCB what you dont realise is that as a nation you have been trying to do this since WWII and had your arses kicked frequently. You even turned up to that bash 2 years late.

Dont you realise that your 5th Ammednment Balls is reviled by the rest of the civilised world.

Does anybody know how many people are killed in the US by guns a day. It is a staggering amount from a civilised country.

OCB I dont generally read your threads but now you sound like that Idiot Ronchommer. I do not subscribe to your religious forcefulness but that is your choice. But standing by the right to bear arms is totally rediculous. I personnally believe the NRA are seriously mad.

I hope that more people support the Mothers Against Guns. Maybe commonsense might onday prevail in your country.

OH by the way I hope you will one day get a proper foreign policy.

Devils Advocate
28th Jun 2001, 23:49
Trouble is that most Texans think 'going abroad' means leaving the state !

Q). Just how many non-millionaires are represented in the USA house of Congress and / or the Senate ?

A). Not many, is how many !

America - land of the brave (well you'd need to be with all those guns about) and home of the free (so long as you've got plenty of dosh in the bank).

Engineer
29th Jun 2001, 00:19
A word of warning

OCB is a god fearing person and you should be careful not to incur the wrath of the almighty

Winston Smith
29th Jun 2001, 00:21
trolleydollylover,

I'm having that strange inkling that this thread is going to bloat to at least 10 pages during the next few days.

Though I certainly don't agree with ocb in ontological matters, I think I clearly have to subscribe to his views concerning man's inalienable right to self-defense. As I said in the "Not again!" thread, his statement that an "armed society is a very polite and respectful society" is hard to refute. An armed society is also the only safe-guard against an evil government like the one who committed the Waco massacre, to name but one case. It doesn't matter whether they were nuts or not - Janet Reno probably thought she could get away with it just because they were different. - old_cross_bound, you would be taken much more seriously if only you stopped clobbering us with His Wrath.

A government which does not have to fear its own people does not need to ban guns.

That's it for now.

P.S.: I think you are talking about the Second Amendment, aren't you?

Davaar
29th Jun 2001, 00:39
I do not live in Texas, or even the USA, and I do not own a handgun. I have shot everything from a .177" airgun to a 4” naval gun, but I have never killed with anything more lethal than a can of Raid. That is just to establish my wimphood.

However.... how many million Ukrainians were exterminated by the Communists in the 1930s, and how many fewer would that have been if they had been armed?

When and why did the UK introduce strict gun ownership controls? I have read, and it would be easy to check, that the time was just after World War 1, and the reason was government’s fear of disorder among returning veterans who found that they had not come back to a land “fit for heroes to live in”.

I have also read, and I’ll try to find the source, that in those states where it is legal to “carry” the incidence of violent crime is not high, but very low.

Naturally, all this self-help exists only in the US. Really? Here is one, quite recent, from the UK. Rowdies terrorise an old woman whose cottage is just outside the village. She complains to police but,.... well it is the budget and resources, you know. Can’t have an officer there all day and all night, can we, Missus?

She tells one of the lads of the village. He and other lads visit the terrorisers, reason with them, sing a few hymns, give them 12 hours to leave -- for ever. Persuaded by the logic, they leave; first complaining to the police, some trumped up story about a beating.

Those budgets again! Shock and Dismay. Police cannot find a single clue. Not one. It really is a scandal. Police confess themselves baffled by the Napoleons of Crime. Peace returns. Old lady is undisturbed.

airtaxi
29th Jun 2001, 01:35
The old saying goes "it isn't the gun that kills you, it's the person pulling the trigger".
Maybe you should have to pass an intelligence test before you can own a gun?

I must say that it isn't often I agree with OCB but I think he has a point about a government becoming too powerful (big brother,New World Order etc). No matter how democratic a country claims to be you can bet that lethal force will always be authorised against unruly citizens..

Mert
29th Jun 2001, 01:39
People, before we turn this in to a big " my country is better than your country " pissing contest just remember this, it doesn't matter if you are an outsider looking in at another culture, or an insider looking out ( think about that one for a minute ) your field of vision is going to be very narrow. As for the idea of owning guns in my country is concerned, I don't give a good god d*mn if the next guy chooses to own a gun, it's his business, not mine.

Mr moto
29th Jun 2001, 01:49
An intelligence test for gun licences in the US. Now that would seriously limit the weapons on the street but the people who pass were probably not the problem in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the constitutional right to carry arms conditional. That it is 'in the absence of an organized militia'.

Perhaps the Straw Giant has no means of defending itself.

Mycroft
29th Jun 2001, 02:36
Shortly after the last UK gun amnesty /i saw a number of the guns that had been handed in and passed to a major museums reference collection rather than being destroyed, and there were several H&K MP5s - a weapon that is banned in civilian hands even in most of the states and has never been legal in the UK.

Squawk 8888
29th Jun 2001, 02:53
Mr. Moto- the Second Amendment is unconditional, the phrase "well-ordered militia" is simply a preamble stating the reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms. There were two reasons for this; the first was that they were simply extending the British tradition of citizens arming themselves so that they can be called to service on short notice (at the time, British law required citizens to arm themselves) and more importantly, the colonists realized that the best way to avoid tyranny was to have a populace that was better-armed than the state. Tyranny is what you get when the people fear the government, while freedom is what you get when the government fears the people. Do you think Stalin would have been able to murder 11 million Ukrainians if every farmer had a rifle? How many Jews would have gone to the chambers if the SS men had been afraid to approach their homes?

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

Winston Smith
29th Jun 2001, 04:18
Excellent post, Davaar!

Criminals couldn't care less whether guns are illegal or not. Quite on the contrary, they will feel much safer if they can reasonably expect their victims to be unarmed. Only law-abiding citizens would turn their guns in. And I suppose Western governments wouldn't be afraid of them, would they? ... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

It's quite simple really: Almost every male adult Swiss citizen is required to have a fully automatic weapon complete with ammunition at home at all times. Switzerland is one of the safest places on Earth, and until very recently, no people has ever been more free than the Swiss. As has been said, guns don't kill people...

Capt Vegemite
29th Jun 2001, 05:09
MAKE MY DAY! (http://www.larainmotion.com/TR--ANIM-Shoot-Shoot03.gif)

Squawk 8888
29th Jun 2001, 05:09
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Criminals couldn't care less whether guns are illegal or not. Quite on the contrary, they will feel much safer if they can reasonably expect their victims to be unarmed. Only law-abiding citizens would turn their guns in.</font>
So true, Winston. Here in YYZ street shootings with handguns have become a daily occurrence, yet Canada has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Just last weekend we had three murders, all committed with prohibited weapons. The crooks now have the run of many neighbourhoods here to the point where firefighters answering calls have to get the cops to escort them because they would be attacked while trying to put out fires. Then on those rare occasions when the victims of crime successfully fought back, guess who ended up in jail?

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

HugMonster
29th Jun 2001, 08:08
Like Davaar, I have owned and used a large variety of firearms, for various purposes. Can't compete with Naval cannon, though...

Anecdotal evidence is always the most dangerous, and it is generally on anecdotal evidence that journalists like to try to hang stories.

You have to look at the overall situation.

Having been closely involved with the security forces in a nastily violent little corner of the world, I saw the statistics not too long ago on private firearm ownership vs. firearm crime and shootings.

In almost all the tables there is a direct correlation between private gun ownership and illegal use of firearms. The USA tops the tables in all categories.

You may think that ownership of guns makes the citizenry safer. You may think that, but you'd be wrong. An armed society is a very, very dangerous society.

The protection of the people against tyranny argument is total, childish nonsense. The aim of the militia was not to protect the people against tyranny, but to protect against invasion from outside. Furthermore, there is, outside of the National Guard, no genuine legal militia in the USA any more. Therefore the 2nd. Amendment is dead and overdue for burial.

Next, does anyone suppose that if the US government were to be turned against the American people, they would be able to protect themselves with nickel-plated .38 snubnose revolvers and saturday night specials - against M16's, GPMG's, .50's mounted on Hummvees? Give me a break. A bit too much Hollywood there.

Where do you suppose that criminals obtain their illegal firearms from? The vast majority are stolen from legal collections. The more "legal" firearms there are, the easier it is for criminals to obtain them.

Guns do not kill people - true. However, in any society there are always homicidal maniacs. Let's not make it easy for them to become armed homicidal maniacs.

Davaar
29th Jun 2001, 09:33
I see little point in discussion with anyone who dismisses any view other than his as childish nonsense. Goodbye.

swashplate
29th Jun 2001, 12:23
Must say I have to agree with HugMonster on this one!!

I understand the 'protect our freedoms' argument, and I don't trust the Politico's, but I also have wondered how a 20-shot handgun is supposed to protect the citizenry against precision-guided munitions, fuel-air explosives, armoured divisions etc. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Even the crappy SA-80 (sorry, Individual Weapon :) :)) would be a match for 'em :) :)

I used to work with a Canadian guy who said it was the 'frontier mentality' at work!!!!

I don't necessarily feel any safer with our post-Dunblane laws (engage WUSS mode!) but I wouldn't want to live in a DMZ like some areas of the U.S. seem to be.......

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....

The Guvnor
29th Jun 2001, 12:47
As someone who has personally owned a variety of weaponry - including a Sig P226, MP5K, HK53 and a Sites Spectre I think I can speak with a certain amount of authority on the matter.

I wan't residing in the States at the time - I was in Africa, an area that by and large makes the worst crack infested area of the States look like absolute paradise.

Unfortunately, I was not able to adopt the stance of "well, if I'm not armed then the blokes that hold me up will just go away" - largely because said blokes had the interesting perspective of shooting first and asking questions later. The only way to avoid ending up the late Guvnor was to respond in a similar manner - in effect, the only language they understood.

However, that's Africa - and as I said, it's nothing like any part of the States I've ever seen.

The fact of the matter is that any society that has its kids taking firearms into schools and wiping out other kids is in a state of fundamental crisis. The fact that schools have installed metal detectors as an SOP indicates to us here in the UK that US society is well and truly f*cked up.

When I returned from Africa, I had to leave my hardware there. And why not? I certainly don't need to carry a P226 in Regent Street - and to use an HK53 to hunt deer with is overkill, to say the least - quite apart from the damage to the meat caused by hydroshock! I felt naked without my P226, which I had carried 24/7 for most of the preceeding fifteen years for about six months - I still generally make sure that I get tables in restaurants away from windows, with my back to the wall and facing doors but that's just habit.

And you know what? It's actually a relief! :) :) :)

Winston Smith
29th Jun 2001, 14:09
Davaar,

it appears that the arguments for self-defense are just too simple and plain obvious for our liberal friends to understand.

Private firearm ownership in the USA was even less restricted in the earlier part of this century, and I'm told that it was not unusual for boys to take weapons with them to school for shooting lessons. Those were the days when a simple "no" uttered by parents was all to keep their children away from the (unlocked) gun cabinet.


Hug:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Anecdotal evidence is always the most dangerous, and it is generally on anecdotal evidence that journalists like to try to hang stories.</font>
I don't know what exactly you are refering to. Switzerland is no "anecdote". It is a self-respecting society.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Next, does anyone suppose that if the US government were to be turned against the American people, they [...]</font>
The point is, many American patriots think that has already happened, with the turning point sixty years ago.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Where do you suppose that criminals obtain their illegal firearms from? The vast majority are stolen from legal collections. The more "legal" firearms there are, the easier it is for criminals to obtain them.</font>
Especially in the Old World, criminals can easily acquire firearms from Eastern Europe, mainly from Russia and the Balkan war zone. No need to steal them.


And though I'm sure some of you are certainly not going to like it, I confidently state that I'd feel much more secure living in a society full of the likes of ocb than in the "safe and protected" world of Big Brother that Western Europe is rapidly turning into. A neighbor like ocb may protect may family one day - the authorities won't give a ****.


[This message has been edited by Winston Smith (edited 29 June 2001).]

trolleydollylover
29th Jun 2001, 14:18
Great Post HugMonster.

Ed and co wake up and get some common sense. I really do hope that this thread doesnt become a jingoistic paradise.

From being on the other end of the red hornets on a two way range, you cannot justify weapons in a civil society.

Who is America trying to protect itself from, Paraguay or Belize. I am afraid to say fellas if they are going to get you it is going to be car bombs not a full scale invasion starting at Wal*Mart.

Gog
29th Jun 2001, 16:02
Trolley and all, for clarity a question.

Is this about

A: handguns (eg. pistols )
B: all guns.

In private hands ?

itchy kitchin
29th Jun 2001, 16:33
When the constitution was written, they were alarmed at the amount of hunting going on and to give the animals a chance, the constitution should have read " the right to ARM BEARS "

But seriously, the law in the UK needs re examining. If a legal gun owner defends himself against intruders in his home with a shotgun, he is the one that goes to jail (Tony Martin etc. etc.) I hate the "care for the criminal " culture. I think that it is scandleous that the almost extinct bobby on the beat doesn't even have a gun, given the amount of gang shootings in London. Something has to be done or there will be more no go areas for the police.

HugMonster
29th Jun 2001, 17:13
Winston, Switzerland is a special case in almost any argument.

The weapons people keep in their own homes are not privately owned, for sport of self-protection. All Swiss are members of a regulated militia, and need to account not only for the weapons, but every round of ammunition issued to them. Each weapon is documented ballistically, and were they to be used in pursuit of any crime, the authorities would be knocking on the door of the registered keeper in very swift order.

The argument that we need to protect ourselves against the armed criminal is also short-sighted, blinkered nonsense. Does anyone really think that the answer to firearms in society is for EVERYONE to be armed? Would that make people feel safe????

Yes, I have no doubt that some people in the USA think that their government is tyrannical and has turned against them, rather than acting in their best interests. Timothy McVeigh was one of them. There are also another bunch who appear sincerely to believe that their government is spraying them with chemicals from great altitude from commercial jets. I don't think I shall accept the arguments proposed by any of the above.

HugMonster
29th Jun 2001, 17:20
Oh, and swashplate? Wash your mouth out. We don't mention the Sodding Awful 80 in any discussion on firearms. It's not a firearm. It's a weight specially designed to knock you about the head when carried on the back or over the shoulder with a bergen, cunningly fashioned from recycled baked bean cans, and intended to be used only to club baby seals.

Tricky Woo
29th Jun 2001, 18:22
I have the right to bare arms. Oh yes. In the summer time it's more comfortable to wear a short sleeved shirt. So there.

As for carrying guns, Huggy got there before me regarding the Swiss Militia. Chalk and cheese, I'm afraid. The Swiss tend not to sit at home polishing their guns and dreaming of the day when they can nail some poor sod for 'disrespecting' them. They also tend not to run around the Alps shooting the wildlife with Armalites. Alps are for skiing on, you see.

As regards the age old "Guns don't kill people" twaddle: I'd like to correct that:

"Guns don't kill people. People don't kill many people. People and guns kill lots of people". Especially when people lose their tempers. Which they do quite a lot.

Remove guns from the equation and people simply hit each other a few times, and then go to the pub to assure each other that they're the bestest mates ever. "Hic. I f**king love you, I do. Hic". Hard to buy your bestest mate a beer after you shoot him 'cos the beer leaks out of the bullet holes.

TW

swashplate
29th Jun 2001, 18:25
Washing mouth out now, Huggy!!! :) :)

Only mentioned it 'cos its the only waepon I've used - 1 yr TA Signals. Waste of space IMHO.

Velvet
29th Jun 2001, 19:39
Winston
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Almost every male adult Swiss citizen is required to have a fully automatic weapon complete with ammunition at home at all times </font> guess they don't trust women with guns.

As for thinking that ocb would protect you - only if you were a fundamentalist, bible-bashing, Christian worshipper who completely accepted his belief structure. Otherwise, you ain't got a hope in hell of him coming to your rescue. Based on what he posts here, he'd be cheering them on, if he wasn't already firing the guns at you and your family.


Tricky, as always a note of sanity and humour xxxxx

Iceolareanic
29th Jun 2001, 20:14
Guns are considered to be dangerous objects, as their purpose is to kill. They are built from cold steel, like the heart behind it when the trigger is pulled. They symbolise a total failure in society when we resort to killing each other.

When man lived in caves, he manufactured weapons to protect himself, and to hunt for food. In those days weapons were essential for life to continue. As man became stronger, and then became prejudiced, he turned those weapons on his neighbour. Life was cheap at that time, as man was still living with the morals of animals.

Religion sought to change this. It sought to teach the value and the meaning of life. 4000 years later, man still insists on killing each other, only this time with better weapons. In 100 years time, it will no longer be guns, it will be something more powerful and dangerous.

What is needed is not a 'ban on guns', but a change in society, a total change in the way society is, so that they are used for hunting and protecting. Maybe someday the only protecting guns will do, is giving arctic explorers safety from the bears, not one man from another.

If we all feared God, we would not be able to pull the trigger. Right now, the only fear people have when they pull the trigger is being caught afterwards. Soldiers think they are immune from final judgment, because they have been ordered by someone in higher authority to pull the trigger. Maybe if we all showed full fear and respect for God, it would be safe to have a loaded gun in every house, a cold metal ornament to gather dust.

Squawk 8888
29th Jun 2001, 20:56
Trickywoo <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"Guns don't kill people. People don't kill many people. People and guns kill lots of people". Especially when people lose their tempers. Which they do quite a lot.</font>
Read a report earlier this year that more than 3/4 of the murders in Alberta in January were committed by women bashing their hubbies with frying pans, by your rationale perhaps we should ban them or, at the very least, establish a national cookware registry (right now we're registering rifles although frying pans caused more deaths in Canada this year).

Iterestingly enough, there are more legally-owned guns in Calgary than Toronto yet shootings are virtually unheard of there, while they have become a daily occurrence here.

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

Magumba
29th Jun 2001, 23:01
If guns cause the problem why are there no shootings at the NRA convention or a gun show?
The states that have allowed concelled carry show lower not higher rates of murder, assult, rape, robbery. Also .0001% of CCW gun owners have committed a gun crime.
The cities in the US that have the most strict gun laws are the most lawless. Don't try walking in NYC at night in Queens.

Sorry guns are not the problem, a breakdown in morals is.

DC Meatloaf
29th Jun 2001, 23:06
Caught this parody press release on another site (National Review Online) and thought it dovetails well with Squawk's post.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Daschle & Kennedy Call for Abolition of Bathtubs Washington, D.C. (CNN) — In the wake of the tragic and horrifying drowning of five children by their mother Andrea Yates in the bathtub of their Houston home, Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy have called for making home bath tubs illegal. "How many children have to die before we accept the fact that bath tubs are a major cause of death in the home," Kennedy said. He cited Consumer Product Safety Commission data which confirms that bathtubs are now one of the 5 leading causes of home accidental deaths.

"It may very well be that if this severely depressed mother had not had ready access to a bathtub, these 5 innocent children might still be alive today," Kennedy added at the somber Washington press conference. He was surrounded by representatives from a wide range of liberal organizations including People for the American Way, Children's Defense Fund, and Bathtub Control, Inc.

Daschle and Kennedy also called for an immediate doubling of National Institute of Health funding for post-partum depression. "We've been ignoring the cries for help of these horribly depressed women for too long," said National Organization for Women president Patricia Ireland. Mrs. Yates is "as much a victim as a criminal in this sad incident," she observed. Ireland also said that this incident only underscores the fact that America remains a "patriarchal society" where women are forced to rear children at home "isolated" and without "any support networks from government or the community." "This situation where women are imprisoned at home with their children is the worst possible kind of child-care arrangement for mother and child."

Mrs. Yates made her first public appearance this morning on The Today Show. In her usual probing, but empathetic manner, Katie Couric asked: "Mrs. Yates, after you drowned your five children, how did that make you feel?"

Kennedy and Daschle pledged that they would launch a series of Senate hearings on bathtub-related deaths, and were greeted by thunderous applause by many of the consumer-advocate groups in attendance. People don't drown children, bathtubs do," Ralph Nader noted. "We intend to do to bathtubs in this decade what we did to Corvairs in the 1960s: abolish them." Marian Wright Edelman weighed in by noting that it will do very little good to "get handguns out of the home, if people still have access to bathtubs that are statistically about as dangerous."

The American Trial Lawyers Association says that it will set in motion a $6 billion class-action liability suit against the "rapacious and irresponsible" bathtub producers for selling these "weapons of destruction."

Activist groups chimed in that a ban on bathtubs would have collateral societal benefits. The Sierra Club issued a press release noting that "bathtubs needlessly waste gallons of water every day" and that the optimal "green policy" would be for Americans to take showers, not baths, and preferably not every day."

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas ridiculed the Daschle-Kennedy bill, saying: "Rather than just ban bathtubs from homes, why not ban water and modern plumbing."

Daschle ended the news conference by declaring: "After Andrea Yates drowned her 5 kids in that bathtub she called 911 and confessed with great remorse: 'I Killed My Children.' But it wasn't just this poor tortured mother, but each and every one of us in society who were co-conspirators in this senseless death and I will work tirelessly on legislation to make sure that this kind of tragedy never happens again."

Author's note: After writing this parody, I asked my research assistant to do a search of commentaries on Ms. Yates monstrous act of filicide. I was astonished to find that this is hardly even a parody of the left's reaction to the murders. If you want to be especially sickened, read Anna Quindlen's rant against society and stress in the current Newsweek. Her column is so over the top, at the end she is forced to write as an afterthought: "Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses, for Andrea Yates." Sure.
</font>

Not trying to make light of that awful incident...

trolleydollylover
30th Jun 2001, 02:43
Sqwauk 8888

I am sorry mate but that was a daft post.
I am Afraid hug hit the nail almost on the head. There is absolutely no justification in having guns in the home.

I do not believe that the British Bobby should be armed on the beat, however **** loads of them carry weapons, and there are alot more than just the Bill on the streets. Rest assured.

Winston Smith
30th Jun 2001, 04:45
Tricky Woo: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Remove guns from the equation and people simply hit each other a few times, and then go to the pub to assure each other that they're the bestest mates ever. "Hic. I f**king love you, I do. Hic". Hard to buy your bestest mate a beer after you shoot him 'cos the beer leaks out of the bullet holes.</font>
Yeah, I guess that's the solution. Since guns are rarely used for anything besides beer brawls, there's no need for them anyway. And while we are at it: Buy the whole world a beer and no one will ever again be bothered to use them.

HugMonster: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The argument that we need to protect ourselves against the armed criminal is also short-sighted, blinkered nonsense. Does anyone really think that the answer to firearms in society is for EVERYONE to be armed? Would that make people feel safe????</font>
Do you sincerely believe the folks in Cincinnati will buy your arguments? - And why not round up (as they are going to do anyway) firearms in South Africa? I'm sure the criminals will gladly appreciate some kind of amnesty period to turn in their weapons so that everyone will be able to have a peaceful life at last! It's cruel to expose those disadvantaged guys to the danger of armed resistance ("racist" at that, no doubt). After all, slaughtering farm families is just their way of having fun! Denying them that would certainly amount to "apartheid".

As for tyrannical governments, please note that no one is talking about weird conspiracies here, such as "black helicopters", "microchip implants" (though I wouldn't put it past them) or even "fluoridation". On the other hand, a Federal Government which has, to name but one example, sent paratroopers against concerned parents to "integrate" schools can hardly be called anything but "evil".

I also would like to encourage ocb to further expound his views on this topic... Show them liberals! :)

HugMonster
30th Jun 2001, 07:41
Oh well, if they've "sent paratroopers against concerned parents" (what exactly does this mean?) then that's okay. All the parents should feel entirely justified in arming themselves, and blowing away said paratroopers - go on - feel free to blow their heads off, maim them, kill 'em all - and then blame the government. :rolleyes:

Winston Smith
30th Jun 2001, 13:12
I did not suggest "blowing them away" in any way, but cited it as an example as to why responsible American patriots are quite reasonable in their distrust against the Feds.

The Guvnor
30th Jun 2001, 13:24
Conspiracy theories .... is this where we start talking about chemtrails? :) :) :)

Unfortunately, as the increasing amount of gun related crime in the UK shows, the overwhelming majority of licenced firearm owners don't use them to commit crimes. The 'criminal' guns will have been stolen or obtained overseas and smuggled into the UK - and of course would fall outside any gun control legislation.

The same, of course, would apply to any similar legislation anywhere else - be it South Africa or the States - if guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have them.

And that's the real problem, folks!

Radar Departure2
30th Jun 2001, 15:46
Why is it that I feel decidedly uneasy when I hear "American patriots" in a sentence, especially one that also contains "tyrannical government"? It only needs "god-fearing" to complete the set.

RD

HugMonster
30th Jun 2001, 16:05
Okay, Winston, if you're not suggesting blowing anyone away, why are you quoting this example as a reason for Americans to distrust their government, and therefore, as a reason for their wanting to be armed? If you discount competitive target shooting and acquiring antiques, why does anyone want to possess a firearm - other than blowing someone away?

And Guv? The largest proportion of firearms used in crimes in the UK and, I suspect, in the USA, are not illegal imports, but guns previously legally held, and stolen from their rightful owner, such as the weapons used in the Columbine High School massacre.

Winston Smith
30th Jun 2001, 17:01
HugMonster,

the question is not: "Why does anyone want to possess a firearm?", but:

"Why does the government not want anyone to possess a firearm?"

Just governments need not fear its citizenry. And please don't insult our intellect by replying "to prevent crime". Western governments don't give a **** about preventing crime.

Velvet
30th Jun 2001, 18:56
If a gun is handy, you're more likely to use it.

It comes back to the reason for a gun, it has no other purpose than to kill or injure.

Winston, I'm sure that ocb would willingly put a gun to the head of every non-christian and pull the trigger - he's already made that clear.

Gog
30th Jun 2001, 19:30
Well done to all so far on this highly emotive subject.

The problem of a gun debate is that the Anti crowd will always see gun owners as defending the indefencable ie. a tool to most efficientlty kill, and so not needed in a civil society, and the Pro gun crowd is on the best way to save my life,family,liberty aspect and and so, needed in a civil breakdown,local or national.

The twain shall never meet.

The matter of gun deaths in the US is more complicated than,but admittedly complicated by,the presence of guns (handguns) and blaming this huge problem only on the mere existance of these weapons is simplifying the problems of a nation that is dealing with major social fractures too much.
It is more of a symptom of a deeper problem...

You splitter
30th Jun 2001, 19:31
Living where I do, here in the UK, I am lucky enough to walk down a busy road and not have to wonder how many people are carrying a leathal weapon. I must admit I would not like to see the same sort of gun culture as I see in the US. I don't wish to have to buy myself a gun just because every other person has one, and in order to feel safe I must too!

As for crime, I find it hard to imagine many burgalars, out in the UK tonight, tooled up with a semi-automatic. Put a gun in every home, and on every law enforcement officer and I bet you there would be a hell of a lot more of 'em carrying a gun.

Its a fact, the more unlawful citizens have firearms, then the more lawful ones will too. And vice versa. Before you know it it's a vicious circle.

This is called MAD. Mutually assured destruction. It means that if two parties both have power and weaponry of equal proportion, then harmonious exsistance is guarenteed. Wrong. This policy was used before both world wars and failed, and even more worryingly was in practice until recently in the cold war.

So why do people feel safer with a gun.
If no-one had them I'd feel a hell of a lot safer. Having said that I know this is an idealistic view. If I could make the rules I'd hate to take a weapon(kept in self defence) away from a law abiding family living in an area rife with crime and murder.

It's a toughie!!
YS

[This message has been edited by You splitter (edited 30 June 2001).]

Winston Smith
1st Jul 2001, 03:03
Radar Departure2,

can't tell why you feel uneasy. Besides that, I think they are free to fear whom else they like to, as well. So-called "Liberalism" is a much more dangerous (and absurd) religion.


Vel,

I don't think ocb would do this. Somehow I presume he's probably much more "relaxed" in real life. Don't know why, just a feeling...


Gog,

correct. I guess it's one of those hen-and-egg debates, in the end.


And at last: The Solution for all the world's problems:

Let's simply round up ALL governments' as well as privately owned weapons! No need to fear neither criminals nor tyranny any longer! No one will ever be able to do any serious harm for the rest of history!

mriya225
1st Jul 2001, 03:07
I happened to notice this peice of craziness while I was doing some reseach for a USMC support website and querried the web for "patriotic" links...
This is one of the more sane things I found, by the way - and even this gives me the willies!

Is it something in the water? Have people gone completely off the deep end? This is patriotism?!

Stop the world, I wanna get off...... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
GUN REFRESHER COURSE A through Z

a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

b. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

c. Colt : The original point and click interface.

d. Gun control is not about guns it's about control.

e. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

f. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

g. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

h. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

i. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

j. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

m. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

n. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

o. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

p. You don't shoot to kill you shoot to stay alive.

q. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.

r. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

s. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.

t. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.

u. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to Control them.

v. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

w. Enforce the "gun control laws" in place, don't make more.

x. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

y. The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.

z. "..a government by the people, for the people.."

There's 5 boxes to Freedom: Ballot, Witness, Jury, Soap & Cartridge
</font> Courtesy of the wing-nuts @ http://www.pbn.4mg.com/

I am an American & I support my nation, but this archaic constitutional provision is a threat to American society -- in figurative and literal terms.
We're not living in an age where the Sheriff is a twenty minute ride on horseback, for krissakes; my police department is a phone call away!
I don't even trust people to drive like they've got any functional grey matter anymore - I most certainly do not want them owning firearms!!

For those who'd debunk my right to speak on the matter:
It must be said too, that the only situation i've ever been in, in my life, where it might have been nice to have a .357 to back my play - I thank the God's I didn't have one in my home or I would surely have been raped while staring down the barrell of my own weapon.
I managed to protect myself without it (all 5'1" @ 110lbs. of me) and he was on top of me - so it isn't like I had time to scramble out of harms way. I had to steel my nerve without the aid of a gun in my hand, and I did.



[This message has been edited by mriya225 (edited 01 July 2001).]

Winston Smith
1st Jul 2001, 03:29
Thanks, myria225,

for just posting the best arguments in favor of armed citizenry! Could never have thought of all of them myself. With the possible exception of "c" I would readily subscribe to every single point!

(And if you think this "extremist" or whatever, you really ain't seen nothin' yet...)

Velvet
1st Jul 2001, 03:41
How to Win Friends and Influence People

the Winston Smith way

mriya225
1st Jul 2001, 05:06
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">(And if you think this "extremist" or whatever, you really ain't seen nothin' yet...)</font>

Of course I have Winston Smith, we just executed him (Timothy McVeigh). These are the roots of his madness buddy, you get any more extreme than the above mentioned lunacy - you'll become an enemy of the state too.




------------------
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw. -- William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

Radar Departure2
1st Jul 2001, 08:12
Oh yes, THAT'S why I feel uneasy with god-fearing American patriots. Thanks for a breath of sanity, mriya.

I like to think the broad tapestry of opinions are what gives JB its life, and also that I would basically like to have a drink and a discussion with everyone on here.

Winston has now joined the extremely short queue of people on JB I would refuse to drink with. Now doubt he will be traumatised by this, but try to bear up under the strain, Winston. I will.

Anybody who proudly claims your views while calling liberalism dangerous needs psychiatric help. You are one sick puppy.

If you feel you must get in the last word, go ahead. I don't argue with lunatics.

RD

mriya225
1st Jul 2001, 11:17
How ya doing Radar? I've missed you love, I've been so awfully busy lately! :)

Winston Smith, since you were so fond of the list I thought I'd give you my version.

MODIFIED GUN REFRESHER COURSE A through Z

a. An armed man is a citizen with the potential to do great harm. An unarmed man is a citizen with the potential to do less harm than if he'd had some firepower.

b. A gun in the hand is a distinct threat to myself and the cop on the phone.

c. MS PC : The original point and click interface.

d. Gun control is about the collective safety of our society in the absence of reliably responsible behaviour by gun owners.

e. Just who are you planning to hack to pieces with those swords, anyway?

f. Guns do not cause crime - but they do make crime more deadly.

g. Free men are still free to stop being so self-involved and consider the safety of all free men in their nation.

h. If you don't know your rights, you're a fool, but you still have them.

i. Those who trade our collective security for their own personal security have neither.

j. The Declaration of Independence (c) 1776. All Rights Reserved.

k. What part of "unalienable" do you not understand?

l. The Second Amendment is archaic and, at present, poses a threat to our national security.

m. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. Am I supposed to congratulate you on this???

n. Guns had two enemies: Idiots and Psychopaths.

o. When the military and police departments possess guns, know peace and safety. When J.Q. Public possess guns, no peace nor safety.

p. You don't have to shoot to kill, or shoot to stay alive.

q. 911 - your connection to the first line of civil defense in this country.

r. Assault is a behavior, made more deadly with the use of firearms.

s. Criminals love using guns - it makes their job easier.

t. Guns do not cause Crime - but they make crime more deadly. (Worth noting twice)

u. Only a paranoid citizen is afraid that their government is trying to Control them.

v. You have unalienable rights whether you are willing to fight for them or not.

w. "Gun control laws" have not sufficiently curtailed the threat to the American public--therefore it is in the best interest of the people to repeal the right to bear arms.

x. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create a civilized country in which it is more difficult for one citizen (no more or less important than another) to kill or maim people around them.

y. The American Revolution was a beginning - not a consumation.

z. "..a government by the people, for the people.." Sort of makes the threat of governmental tyranny sound a little silly - don't it! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif


Note: The above references to the Declaration of Independence and 'unalienable rights' are based on mu argument herein...

Now, it seems the strongest argument for your position is the second amendment to our Constitution:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Amendment II 1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</font>

And I say to you, that this archaic constitutional provision has become a literal threat to the safety of this society by virtue of jeopardizing all three of the unalienable rights endowed every citizen in this nation by their Creator, as defined in the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Declaration of Independence 1776 (paragraph II)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.</font>


In short, this amendment is becoming a source of tyranny for the citizens of this nation, as there is no legitimate militia to which this amendment applies.

Even if I grant the traditional second amendment argument the greatest possible latitude, and suppose that the threat of the government ("...a government by the people, for the people...") of the United States suddenly began a campaign of tyranny against its people (presumably with our own military forces) exists. And, furthermore, that this threat is compelling enough to warrant allowing the second amendment to precede my unalienable rights—--are you suggesting that civilians will be able to adequately protect themselves against heavily armed Marine and Army infantry forces with their own personal firearms? I can’t even bring myself to dignify this.

------------------
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw. -- William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

[This message has been edited by mriya225 (edited 01 July 2001).]

The Guvnor
1st Jul 2001, 12:40
HugMonster - reread my last post; that's what I said! :)

Mriya225 - absolutely correct ... and when those God-fearing American patriots get all het up about their ZOG government in Washington, things tend to get rather interesting for the average person in the street.

First of all, they are (almost invariably) demonstrable racists and religious fundamentalists. Strangely, they seem to have a major problem with other (eg black, Jewish or Muslim) racists and/or religious fundamentalists - though I hear that Louis Farakkhan has friendly links with some of them!

Next, they tend to work on the "keeping up with the Jones'" principle. This means that if the White Aryan Sod Off Zog National Government of Colorado has Stinger surface to air missiles, then the Racial Purity Lynching Friendly Society of Tennessee wants Minuteman missiles (and with a name like that, what red blooded God fearing American patriot wouldn't?)

Finally, they work on the martyr principle - as was seen on Ruby Ridge, Waco and recently with those kids ... get the US government in the form of an over-eager trigger-happy FBI and/or BATF to kill a few people; and you'll have a thousand more God fearing American patriots joining up.

Halelujah, praise the Lord! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Poor old God. He's got to be seriously p*ssed off with all those people claiming that He's on their side - and therefore having the divine right to wipe out everyone who doesn't agree 100% with them. Even the Nazis did it - all German soldiers had 'Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.

Winston Smith
1st Jul 2001, 13:51
myria225,

I think I have got to make something clear:

As far as I am concerned personally, I do not even wish to possess a firearm at the present time. I've never been one of those gun freaks, and apart from what little I've learned about that subject in the army, I can hardly tell a rifle from a shotgun or whatever. I know of Americans who just joined the NRA - though they don't own a gun - because they feel their right to be armed to be vitally important - and because it pisses off the Feds...

That I'm not religious crack-pot in any way should have become quite obvious by now. Most members of the NRA aren't either, I presume.

My statement that you "ain't seen nothin' yet" was just a humorous reminder to the fact that there are a lot of people out there, mainly in the States, who are much more "nuts" - as you may choose to call it - than probably those who wrote the list you cited.


Radar Departure2,

it's hard to avoid the impression that I'm certainly not the only one on JB who's got serious objections to so-called "liberalism", a word the meaning of which has been perverted (especially in Anglo-Saxon societies) to a stage where it is descriptive of some kind of Big-Brother-State.

And yes, any ideology opposed to nature is dangerous. We need not worry too much though, because it cannot go on infinitely.

No, I do not have to get in the last word, but Mother Nature surely will.

Winston Smith
1st Jul 2001, 14:15
Ermm.... Radar Departure2: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Anybody who proudly claims your views while calling liberalism dangerous needs psychiatric help. You are one sick puppy.</font>
Reminds me strangely of the late Glorious Soviet Union. Anyone who doesn't recognize the inherent truth of Communism must be crazy.

Mycroft
2nd Jul 2001, 00:00
I wish to complain about the Washington DC police gun control seen in tonights 'Speed'. They had an ideal opportunity with Clarkson demonstrating outside the White House and they didn't shoot him!

swashplate
2nd Jul 2001, 12:06
Given the way that 'ordrinary citizens' behave in cars/trains/airliners, would you want them to have guns......

Just 'coz you're over 18 don't make you a mature adult IMHO........

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....

max_cont
2nd Jul 2001, 17:00
As usual, some very good points on gun ownership.

It is a mistake to allow anyone to own any firearm without a good reason. A fascination with firearms, is not a good reason.

I have used firearms since I was fourteen and living on a farm. I served in the military and one thing you learn quickly, is that most soldiers can't shoot worth a damn.
They're definately not experts. The ones who can, usually learned when they were kids

I remember well, lying along side various chaps with a full mag, taking down targets on the ET range during weapons qualification time, because they had failed all attempts to get a passing score. Only "civvies" tend to belive that if you are military you must be a crack shot.

I don't include special ops forces in that sweeping statement.

I still use firearms today. I'm not a "gun nut". To me they are just "tools" to do a job that needs to be done.

The people who really scare me are the people who advocate the unlawfull killing of the Bulger killers. The same sort of idiots who think they can discharge a shotgun at fleeing criminals. The so called good citizens who turn into homocidal maniacs and grab the nearest knife when they are the victim of crime.

These are the people who should not be allowed anything more dangerous than a rubber knife and fork, prevented from driving any kind of vehicle and definitley not allowed to sit on a jury.

I spend a lot of time in the USA. They ARE very different from the UK. When I go to buy the bits that I need from various shops, the people I run into, scare the bejesus out of me. They all seem to think they're Dirty Harry.

IMHO the American public has very good reason to fear armed citizen. I wouldn't want to have to live with a loaded pistol by my bedside, or have one in the glove box.

I always get the impression that the idiots I meet over in the US are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

Thank god we in the UK do have strict gun laws. We need them, but the US need's them
more. I can think of no reason to have a fully automatic asault rifle or to own a 50 cal BMG or an SMG.

Firearm's are not evil. Some of the people who use them are. It matters not if they work for government agencies, or if they are private citizens.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

Constable Clipcock
2nd Jul 2001, 17:03
Guvnor:

Not all of us US firearms owners are demented neo-Nazi/pseudo-Xian extremists. Check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership if you have difficulty believing that. Lot's of good material there.

"After all, who remembers the Armenians?"
Adolf Hitler, 1925

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 02 July 2001).]

Iceolareanic
2nd Jul 2001, 19:13
Editing it again, post will be back in a tick

[This message has been edited by Iceolareanic (edited 02 July 2001).]

Iceolareanic
2nd Jul 2001, 19:26
mriya225
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
u. Only a paranoid citizen is afraid that their government is trying to Control them.</font>

You either don't fully understand the issues that are being raised, or have been deluded by the media. Of course the government is trying to control you, and always has done. It's what governments, senate's and leaders do worldwide, and have done for thousands of years.

The present discussion which scares some people is about the extent to which modern government wants to control you. Today, people who raise or mention these fears are associated with extremist groups(who are a serious threat to soceity).

I don't agree at all with the use of guns, or the unnessacarry private ownership of them. The government's overcontrol is an entirly seperate issue, but unfortunatly one which gives 'extremists' an excuse to hoard guns.

JetAgeHobo
3rd Jul 2001, 03:25
Always enjoy watching the gun control debate, nice and spirited, especially when folks like ocb are used as an example of pro-gun control and that stereotype is used as typical firearm owner.

Before I get going too far, I don't own any firearms, last experience shooting one was in the Boy Scouts (yes, and YMCA summer camp also) when I was about 10.

Looking back at the Columbine episode, others, guesss what. Most are done with illegal firearms. Same for gangland shooting, criminal activity. I don't know how much stronger gun laws we're going to need to head off that problem. Most likely unilateral search and seizure of all firearms.

Then what do you tell the farmer that needs a rifle to deal with both 4 and 2 legged predators, when the nearest cop is a 45 minute drive.

As it is, most people who are killed by guns aren't killed by the random violent criminal activity, they are killed by someone they know. Most dangerous call for law enforement is domestic dispute. I've had at least 3 co-workers that have been shot by wives, girlfriends, boyfriends. None have been killed by unknown criminal.

By the way, medical doctors and hospitals kill more people in the US each year than guns and auto accidents combined.

No doctors with guns please.
------------------------------------------
It's not a matter of where I am, it's a matter of when I am.

HugMonster
3rd Jul 2001, 03:32
The Columbine massacre was carried out using weapons legally-owned by the father of one of the killers.

And if most killings are done by family members etc., why would you want them to have a gun???

JetAgeHobo
3rd Jul 2001, 04:06
I stand corrected about Columbine, but that brings out another range of arguments. How does a teenager amass that much firepower (not all of the firearms were his fathers, some were purchased illegally at gunshows) and his parents not get wind of it?

As far as family members with guns... if they're gonna get you, they don't need a gun. OJ didn't.

Personally, if you don't hunt, don't shoot competitively, (target, skeet) or don't live out in the middle of no where countryside, I don't see the point much anymore in the US of firearm ownership.

Which brings to the "Government" issue. I spend a lot of time in a very large third world communist country, general populace aren't armed. Government has no problem ruling by force, and frequently does. A traffic stop involves AK-47's or some such.

Said government executed over 400 people in June, most for crimes like racketering, corruption, what in the U.S. would be felonies but non-capital offenses. Nary a peep out of the anti death penalty liberals. But let a guy like Timothy McVeigh get the injection for killing 160 something innocent people, including children, and there's the big anti death penalty outcry.

Somehow that double standard just burns my arse.
_____________________________________________
It's not a matter of where I am it's a matter of when I am.

boofhead
3rd Jul 2001, 05:30
Some people are going to kill others with or without a gun (Japan, 8 kids killed with a knife).
You cannot put the genie back in the bottle (in the US, 200 million guns in circulation).
More people are killed by cars, medical personnel and such than by guns (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all my guns (a quote from a T shirt)).
Independent sources show that in the USA there are some 2.5 million crimes prevented by civilians who have used a gun to discourage the perpetrator (not necesarily having to fire the gun, just show him that you are armed).
The number and rate of shootings, home invasions and burglary in the UK and Australia after guns were banned has increased to a frightening degree, proof that banning guns causes crime, for the reason that if guns are illegal only criminals will be armed, and that criminals have nothing to fear from unarmed citizens.
Anti gun activists claim that if you have a gun in the house it will most likely be used against you. A lie, not supported by any studies. The opposite has been shown to be true.
They also claim that 15 kids are shot every day in the US. Again a lie. The figures quoted include all the people under 21 years of age, such as gang bangers who kill each other and criminals who are shot by police.
So on balance, since there are so many guns out there, it would make sense that if you think you need one, go out and buy it. But look after it, don't leave it lying around and consider a trigger lock. Get training before you buy. Like a knife or a circular saw, it can kill or cause serious injury if not handled properly.
But if you choose to not have a gun in the house, that should also be your right. The risks are still low, even in the USA.

Bobcat Badcat
3rd Jul 2001, 07:05
Boofhead ..at least you picked an apt name
Id like to chalenge a few minor points..well all of em actually.
1. I belive it takes a certain breed of lunatic to kill with a knife rather than a gun ...something to do with the ease of it
2. More people killed by cars and medics eh ..hmm even more killed by old age..whats your point????.., please dont belive every thing you read on T-shirts.
3. Guns banned from UK hmm that must have been a long time ago HEY boy dont mess around with that musket, You have never been out of the US have you..i live i the UK and guess what TADA..the crims dont all carry guns ...you wana know why ...cos they dont need to ...cos the citizens dont DOH how wrong could you be ..oh wait theres time (seriously when did this take place and what where the crime figures before and after cos with this statment you got me beliving that you are really full of S*&T)
4. IF the opposite has beeen shown to be true could you please enlighten me by whom?
5. So kids are only kids if they are not in gamgs, shot by gangs or not shot by the police..nice theory you got going there.. i take it you arn't a parent then, maybe you just shooting blanks.
6. So on balance LMAO surly you jest

In the US im sure there are many reasons for and agianst being able to bear arms.. pity you didnt manage to quote any of em

Ken Brockman signing of with his 2 cents

------------------
Laugh in anger, Laugh in Shame, and Laugh every time you fk up, but too loud eh.

swashplate
3rd Jul 2001, 12:43
If anyone still thinks people should have guns then:

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/03/ndan03.xml

Barry George......WIERDO!!!!!!!!

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....

max_cont
3rd Jul 2001, 13:04
I love to see statisics being paraded about. So beloved by any side trying to prove a point. "Bullsh!t baffles brains" (military saying)

The problems in the US are really down to the very simplistic outlook that many citizens have.

I sometimes watch that awfull show "Cops". It never ceases to amaze me when I hear people described as "bad guys", this is by the police officers! Everything is black and white to these people, much like it was to me when I was 18. In one episode I watched, a young man had locked himself into his room and was high on some sort of substance. He was not threatening himself nor anyone else. The cops decided to "take him down", they then calmly discussed the fact that if they felt in danger during this take down, they would need to shoot him more that once to kill him in his present state of mind. It never occured to them to contain the situation, let him come down in time and then calmly drag his butt off to the police station in the morning.

The citizens who tend to have a firearms fascination are generally speaking young males, or poorly educated male adults. All lifes problems can be solved by the use of a Mac10/Uzi or some such military hardware. This seems to be the message from Hollywood that these sort of idiots cling to. The result, a lot of inocent people die.

I don't believe the banning of all firearms is necessary. The onus should be on the applicant, to prove that they are a fit person to own a weapon. That they have a valid reason to own each and every weapon.
That all weapons are kept locked in a firearms safe when not in use. That all applicants have taken and passed a firearms safety course. If they are hunters, then an ability to shoot to a standard that will enable them to kill humanly from a variety of shooting positions, both with and without the use of bipods/sticks. Finally, keep aggressive weapons, ie assault rifles and the like, out of civilian hands.

We in the UK have had these restrictions since Hungerford and Dunblane. On the whole I think they work. You can't legislate against maddness, but you can make it difficult to obtain legal weapons. Unfortunately, just like drugs, if you know where to go and you can pay, you can buy anything.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

max_cont
3rd Jul 2001, 13:21
Swashplate, PISTOLS have been illegal in the UK for quite some time.

Barry George killed with a 9mm pistol. As far as I know, he has never held an FAC and therefore, never been through the checking process. From your simplistic outlook, I can tell you haven't either. How do I know you won't drive your car through the local shopping precinct on a Saturday morning, with the resultant death toll?

The ban obviously failed in it's intent in this case.

Peter Sutcliff killed with a hammer, his unfortunate victims are just as dead as the lovely Jill Dando.

You can't legislate against madness, If someone wants to kill, then they will find a way to do it.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

[This message has been edited by max_cont (edited 03 July 2001).]

Winston Smith
3rd Jul 2001, 13:23
Exactly, max_cont,

criminals will always know where to get their guns. Ordinary citizen ususally don't.

[I was refering to the end of your first post of 09:04]

[This message has been edited by Winston Smith (edited 03 July 2001).]

swashplate
3rd Jul 2001, 13:33
Max_Cont: I don't drive...... :) :)

I don't think my outlook is simplistic. No mattter what sort of checking process you have, how can you ever know that the bloke who want's the gun isn't a psycopath? People can be very plausible.
No, I haven't been through the checking process for FACs. I have no desire to own a firearm, and frankly, I am a bit put off by people who do. I uaed to work with one of these characters and he was a real wierdo!
My only contact with weapons was in the TA and I was made fully aware of the safety drills thereof. I see no reason in peacetime for civilians (who are not subject to military discipline) to have firearms. You yourself give excellent reasons for this when you talk about poorly educated people watching crappy hollywood movies.

Maybe if someone had reported Barry George's firearms fixation his guns could've been taken off him.....

I don't pretend to be an expert, but does that invalidate my opinions???

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....

[This message has been edited by swashplate (edited 03 July 2001).]

Constable Clipcock
3rd Jul 2001, 13:50
BB:

Your assertion that "...it takes a certain breed of lunatic to kill with a knife rather than a gun ...something to do with the ease of it" is a bit to general. In the hands of someone who actually knows what he's doing, it's very easy to kill with an edged weapon. Given justifiable circumstances (e.g.: self-defense or defense of another, combat, capital punishment) and properly applied, edged weaponry and firearms kill equally dead, and in either case, tend to cause less suffering than — for instance — being burned alive.

(OK, you FJ types: how many of you are revolted at the thought of shoving a tanto through an opponent's subclavian artery yet are unbothered by the prospect of cooking those below you with incendiary munitions?)

max_cont:

Don't be misled into thinking that Cops is representative of American policing — it isn't!




[This message has been edited by Constable Clipcock (edited 03 July 2001).]

max_cont
3rd Jul 2001, 14:17
Swashplate, Barry George NEVER owned legal firearms. No one knew he had any. So how does one find out if a person owns one? I suppose we could subject all citizens to a random search. You would probably then complain about infringement of civil liberties.

As for military discipline, My friend was killed by a cook in the guard room in NI because he forgot NSP's. I saw a BFA blown off a weapon after a live firing ex while under "military disciplin". The chap that it missed was not impressed. I saw the chap next to me get a 7.62 round through the heal of his boot while advancing to contact during a live firing ex, again under "military disciplin" I saw a chap fire a batten round and hit my CSM in the chest during a riot, again under "military disciplin" I ran for cover when some bright spark let a 40mm grenade go from an M79 while taking happy snaps in NI, all under "military disciplin". You were in the TA whoopy do, how does the old saying go,"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

As for not trusting any one who uses firearms. If you have ever flown on holiday from the UK, I might have been the pilot at the controls. You trusted me then. The only thing that stops me from crashing the 767 into the middle of London is the fact that I am SANE and NOT suicidal. Show me the law that can prevent that from occurring.


------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

max_cont
3rd Jul 2001, 14:37
Constable Clipcock, I was using that reference as an example of the strange simplistic outlook that US tv tends to promote. I meant no offence to the police officers who do a very proffessional job in almost impossible circumstances. In fact I was taught how to shoot handgun's to a standard that is completly alien to the Birtish Army,(SAS/SBS not included) by a Houston police officer.

I should, in hindsight have used a different example.



------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

Constable Clipcock
3rd Jul 2001, 15:43
None taken, max. In fact, when I attended my own police academy course, I had a couple of instructors who were fond of using Cops excerpts specifically to illustrate how not to get things done on the job.

Of course, it's important to keep in mind that shows such as this one are intended for entertainment, not objective information and certainly not for training. Rest assured that the officers, deputies and jailers who do make it beyond the cutting-room floor of that show never hear the end of it from their colleagues! :)

BTW... one of my uncles was on the HPD back in the 1950's. Lost him in a motorcycle accident back in '81.

swashplate
3rd Jul 2001, 15:57
Please dont put words into my mouth. I never said I dont trust anyone who uses firearms. I would have thought my original post was obviousley reffering to civilians who want to own guns. Not people such as soldiers and police who NEED to use guns in the course of thier duties. Thes people have gone through extensive training and selection - the civvies (certainly the guy I worked with) havn't.

Why are you so abusive about my TA experience? I never compared us to the regs - I was just saying thats where my limited experience of firearms came from.

Also, Barry George discharged a firearm at friens in the 80s.

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....

cyclops
3rd Jul 2001, 17:02
The figures for last year are: USA 30,000 (+/- a few thousand) killed by gunfire. Total number killed in UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada 100 or therabouts. Sorry I cannot remember the exact figures, but if guns were not available in the US, yes people would still be killed but I bet it would be a much smaller number.
On Sunday Michigan enacted a law which stated that if you were not mental you can carry a hidden weapon. Do I feel safer now than I did on Friday?

Constable Clipcock
3rd Jul 2001, 17:16
swash:

Not sure how much the TA in general differs in quality of training vs. the Regular Army, but from my experience working with 21.SAS (Artists), they struck me as damned professional.

One often hears the same RA vs. NG (National Guard) crap here in the US as well, but the fact of the matter is that there are consummate professionals and and thick-headed slackers on both sides of the house.

The majority of the Army NG's Long-Range Surveillance Units — as well as 19th/20th SF Groups — are part-timers, yet can rightly be considered among the top 5% of the American military.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of full-timers out of the Regular Army's Mechanized Infantry, Armored and Airmobile divisions — even a good many from the 82d Airborne Division — whose basic soldiering skills left much to be desired.

To be fair about it however, the "marginal" performers tend to come from the line battalions and support elements — those from the divisional scout platoons on the other hand were some of the most squared-away troops I've seen, active or reserve.

I would submit that any alleged poor performance on the part of TA soldiers would be the fault of a negligent chain-of-command more than anything else, not the part-time status of the rank-and-file.

max_cont
3rd Jul 2001, 18:15
Cyclops, the figures you give, make a compelling argument for gun control.

I am glad we in the UK have such controls in place.

Swashplate, I am now a "civvie" who owns and uses rifles etc. I use them probably two or three times a week. Either maintaining my marksmanship skills, or working up a handload for a particular purpose. (Factory ammunition is not very accurate) Or, in use in the field.

I trust you live in a nice little town. This is why YOU can't think of a reason for "civvies" to own and use firearms.

The only skills I learned in the military have no place in my life as it is now. I don't expect to be considered a danger to society just because I'm proficient in a very unpleasant trade. Then again, just because I learned those skills in the military, doesn't mean that I won't pop a fuse and go on the rampage. I don't need a handgun or rifle, to be a menace to society. Banning them accross the board won't guarantee safety. There are NO guarantees in life. (Except death)

You said, "I have no desire to own a firearm, and frankly I am a bit put off by people who do". That my friend is me.

HM government trusts and certfies me to be in command of an intercontinental airliner and to be legaly responsible for all of my passengers. It is a burden I happily except and a privilage to fly with my collegues. The fact that I know how and still use firearms, doesn't come into it.

As to the piff take of your TA experience. I thought you would understand military humour. To enlighten you, my unit was 6 platoon B company. That means all other companies and platoons in my battalion were not as good as us ;) but they were all better than any other battalion in my Regiment. My Regiment was better than all other Regiments in the British Army. We won't go into the the fighting abilities of the RAF or Royal Navy. All members of the armed services think this way, it's "esprit de corps".

I am sorry if the humour was a little cruel. I do believe that the TA has a place in the modern Army. But I'm afraid we civvies gave the anti shooting fraternity a free run last time around. You're not getting one this time.




------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

swashplate
3rd Jul 2001, 18:23
Max_Cont:

I didn't realise that was banter - it's been a few years! :) :)

Again, I make the point that it is the civvies with no military experience who get an endless fascination with guns that put the willies up me! Hopefully, he may be put off if I draw attention to his inadequacies. No way would I let that guy at work have a penknife but I accept the point that he could prob get 'tooled up' anyway.

I am sure that you are not one of these!
Lets bury the hatchet and agree to disagree.

PS: I was TA Royal Sigs for just over 1 year. IMHO they are a shambles. Dont get me on about this!!!
The TA is an excellent argument for having a stable peace in Europe......

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....

[This message has been edited by swashplate (edited 03 July 2001).]

max_cont
3rd Jul 2001, 18:57
Swash, You have me on the point about civvies with a fixation. They scare me too.

It makes me wonder why the police were not called when Barry George fired a weapon at his friends. If more people reported this kind of behavior, it might save a few lives.

I totally agree about peace in Europe, only those who haven't experienced combat glamorise it. You find out that bravery is brown in colour :)

Please consider the hatchet well and truly buried. :)

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

boofhead
3rd Jul 2001, 21:05
Gun control is too big an issue to debate fully here and those who have their minds made up are not going to change because of something written in Pprune. But..
We compare the US with other countries and try to prove that guns are the reason for the higher crime rate in the US. We should look at the whole picture. Crime is actually dropping in the US and it is fairer to equate this with a stronger economy rather than to guns.
It is a cultural thing, Americans are just more violent it seems. In Switzerland and New Zealand, both countries that have more availability of guns than even in the US, the rate of homicides and indeed all crime is way less than the US. Taiwan and South Africa, which have gun laws much more stringent than the rest of the world (possession can result in a death sentence) have crime rates way higher than the US.
There are more guns in the US (200m) than automobiles (187m) but cars kill 28 times as many people than guns. So much for statistics.
The rate of homicide in the UK (and Aus etc) is lower anyway, although both Aus and the UK saw an increase after their latest gun control actions.
The actions in Aus tell a story that can be interpreted to support gun control or to refute its benefits, because the number of gun deaths is so low that a small change makes a big difference in the stats. But for what it is worth, the number of assaults went up 16% after the gun buyback in 1997. Armed robberies went up 73% (300% in Victoria). Unlawful entries went up 8%. Over a longer period, the average number of armed robberies went from 6,000 per annum in the early 90's to 11,000 after the buyback.
Meanwhile in the US there were about 38,000 gun deaths per year in the early 90's and there are about 30,000 now. A drop despite no gun control. Gun deaths in the US in the major cities NYC, CHI, Detroit and Washington DC are 20% of the national total despite these cities having only 6% of the population and despite these cities having the most draconian gun laws in the nation.
As I said before, the genie is out of the bottle. Gun control in the US is flatly impossible. There is no way those guns can be removed from society and the only thing gun control can achieve is to ensure that the guns will be in the hands of the criminals and the citizens will be at their mercy. It would obviously be much better if those guns had never been allowed to be put into circulation in the first place, but it is too late now to change this.
It would be far safer if the law was changed to mandate every member of the militia (males between the ages of 16 and 60) to be armed. But personally I hope that does not happen. I visit the US often and have never felt that I was in danger and have never seen any violence. Most of the crime is committed by a small number of criminals, and they obviously live somewhere else!

Winston Smith
3rd Jul 2001, 21:40
boofhead,

thanks for an excellent post! You are 100% on target (no pun intended) in saying that it's a cultural thing. Maybe it has even something to do with the climate in places like South Africa, New York, Chicago, Detroit, and that wonderful city of Washington DC. Who knows, perhaps we could even convince the liberals to adopt a more relaxed view by reminding them to the fact that it would be terribly "euro-centric" (a big no-no) to deny these folks their human right to artistic expression. Drive-by-shootings, muggings, and hold-ups (not even mentioning "gang-bangs") are part of their culture (and possibly a justified reaction to decades of oppression), and only a right-wing bigot could be so insensitive to oppose that.

HugMonster
3rd Jul 2001, 22:00
boofhead, your statistics are seriously flawed.

a) You allege that America is simply more violent. Is it, then, your contention that there would be absolutely no difference in the extent of the violence were there to be no guns?

b) You use cars as an example. People do not take their gun out every day and point it at their neighbours, kids, etc. etc.

c) If shootings were not highest in large cities (the most heavily-populated areas), I would be most surprised. Were everyone to live 20 miles from his nearest neighbour, there would be very few shootings indeed. Close proximity produces stress, pressure, overcrowding, turf wars, etc. There is far less crime in small towns where everyone knows everyone else, and it is very difficult for anyone to be "anonymous". So that statistic is meaningless. Further, there is no correlation available on their "draconian" laws to know what the level of shootings would be were these laws NOT in effect.

d) I have already quoted reasons why Switzerland is a special case. I'm not sure on what you base your allegation about New Zealand...

e) You say you have visited the US often - where have you been?

f) What is the solution you propose to the manner in which ownership of firearms in the US is, by your own admission, out of control?

g) Since when was every US male between the ages of 16 and 60 in "the militia"? What is this militia?

Winston, the (only thinly) veiled racism in your post is thoroughly disgusting.

[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 03 July 2001).]

Squawk 8888
3rd Jul 2001, 22:42
I was wondering how long it would be before a liberal screamed "racism!" when losing an argument on facts :)

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

Winston Smith
3rd Jul 2001, 22:59
HugMonster,

interesting reaction! Since I did not name any "identifiable group", it was actually in your mind that the connection between the crimes I mentioned and any minority or whatever was made. Subconscious prejudice?

trolleydollylover
4th Jul 2001, 01:13
Chaps some interesting points made here, However I do believe that certain people are living in LA LA Land.

The way people talk about the SA 80 as if they know its capability, others who are derisory about the TA and those who boast about their previous military experience.

Sound a like they have little knowledge about the Modern British armed forces. Keep it for the pub fellas.

At the least you may get a stare from somebody who is in the know, at the worst you may get somebody with an a strange accent taking your life.

As they used to say in the war, "The Walls Have Ears".

"Nilus Secondus"... Second to None...Next to **** all!

boofhead
4th Jul 2001, 01:39
Hug, I don't have an agenda, but I want some logic applied and less emotion. You are proving my point for me about opinions. However, since you ask:
a. It is not my contention that the people of the USA are more violent, but if you study the facts it is hard to see otherwise. Mind you, the vast majority are just as law abiding as you and I, and a more delightful people you would be hard-pressed to find. Most of the crime is committed by a small number of people. They don't all use guns.
b. Automobiles was just an example of statistics at work. In a similar way, the rate at which doctors in the US kill people (accidentally of course) is 9,000 times higher than that of guns. Interest only.
c. Sure you are right about the cities. But are you suggesting that removing guns (if it were possible) would relieve the stress? Dream on.
d. The New Zealand connection is the rate and availability of gun ownership.
e. I mainly visit CA, but spend time in NV, NY, VA and IL. I have family in CA and IL.
f. I don't have a solution. It is too tough for my little brain. I do think that gun control (which equals victim disarmament) would not work.
g. The Militia in the US was born out of European militias and was set up by the British when the US was a colony. The US Congress in the First Militia Act, 1 Stat.271,1792 defined the militia as all adult able bodied males 16-45 and required them to own a firearm. I have seen reference to an upper age of 50 and even 60 but cannot find that now.
The present United States Code [10USC.311(a)] defines the militia as all able bodied males at least 17 years of age..under 45 and divides them into 2 classes, organised (ie National Guard or Naval Militia) and unorganised (NOT in the NG or NM). The US Supreme Court (US v Miller 1939) defined the militia as "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defence", and further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind commonly in use at the time.
The US Congress in 1995 introduced a bill to make the militia illegal (defined as two or more men, armed, and acting in a military or para-military manner) but it has not passed, and probably would not pass, since it is so contrary to the US Constitution.

Since you asked so politely.

HugMonster
4th Jul 2001, 02:27
Okay, boofhead - so you buy into the gun lobby's definition of "militia". Furthermore, you feel that the safest way out is for every male aged 16-60 to be armed.

If you want logic in the argument, I suggest you bring some. Are you aware that, were we to have the same rate of deaths in the air in the UK as we have on the roads, we would have the equivalent of the Kegworth crash once every fortnight? Keep other methods of death out of it. It doesn't add any illumination.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">It is a cultural thing, Americans are just more violent it seems.</font>
Next:-
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">It is not my contention that the people of the USA are more violent</font>
Which is it to be?

Can you please point me in the direction of your source on New Zealand?

Where in my post do you understand that removal of guns = less stress???? :rolleyes:

And Trollydolly? If you'd like to know what my firearms experience is, feel free to ask. I'd prefer to conduct a conversation like that by email, not in public, though, if you don't mind. I know a little about people with funny accents... If you can find anyone outside Defence Procurement with any experience of the weapon who can say that he thinks the Sodding Awful 80 is a good piece of kit without immediately bursting out laughing, I shall be most surprised.

Further to the points above about military trining in use of firearms, I have to agree from personal experience. One morning I was having an extremely good fry-up in the NAAFI of an unnamed base, when a bunch of RAF Regiment (ptui...) guys came in, and were sitting a couple of tables away having a cuppa. An SA80 was sitting on the tabletop, and one guy was idly fiddling with the mechanism whilst he talked to his mates. I realised it was pointing at me, and asked him, politely, if he'd mind pointing it elsewhere. He had the sense to put it on the floor, and look slightly shamefaced. His mate, however, said to me "It's not loaded, sir". I pointed out that in basic training, I was always told to treat any firearm at all times as if it IS loaded, and suggested that perhaps a little extra training might be required - I would be very pleased to arrange it if he would point me in the direction of his CO... Perhaps wisely, he declined my invitation.

max_cont
4th Jul 2001, 02:39
TDL, You may want to change your profile because you give the impression you're still in. If I was looking to make headlines, I would be looking for a current bod, not an ex. However I do take your point.

I most definitely won't be taking this down the pup.



------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

Velvet
4th Jul 2001, 03:18
'Scuse me,

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">It would be far safer if the law was changed to mandate every member of the militia (males between the ages of 16 and 60) to be armed</font>

so, men only huh - because women can't be trusted with weapons I suppose. Yeah right, better take all the guns and give them to the women - then you'd all be safe :)


wanders off muttering about boys and toys mutter mutter mutter

max_cont
4th Jul 2001, 10:16
Velvet hon, we boy's are stupid, but we're not that stupid.

Women can just give you that look. You know the one that kills at 50 yards, or turn over in bed with that expressive back that does more damage to a chap than any firearm :)



------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

Gog
4th Jul 2001, 13:01
I have read that NZ is No. 3 behind the US.and switzerland in number of guns per pop. though I can't seem to find the info again using the standard search engines, but in 2672500 adults there are 354127 licences.
The number of guns owned is quite high and due to the use of a series of licences based on security requirements and experience ranging from the "A" :general bolts ,semi's and shotguns licence, through military semi's ,handguns to Collectors weapons :Any thing can be owned with the right qualls.

Heres a stats page to play with.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

HugMonster
4th Jul 2001, 13:47
Interesting site, Gog, but I will take with a pinch of salt any "statistics" from a partisan site. I prefer my statistics unadorned by the slant of one side or the other of an argument. That way I can see for myself what the facts are, and make my own mind up.

max_cont
4th Jul 2001, 15:50
Huggie, surely all statistics are used to support or refute an argument or position.

The Home Office wanted the ban and got it. They supplied statistics to support their case.

The same can be said for the pro gun lobby.
They didn't do as good a job as they should have.

The fact is, is that people who want to kill will find a way to do it. Granted, it's a lot easier to kill with a firearm than a knife, but the intent and the result is the same.

Banninig weapons or pretending they cannot be obtained illegally in almost any
civilised country, won't stop the crimes.

As I said before most crimes are commited with weapons that have NEVER been legally obtained.

I think you will remember the case of a few years ago when a US National Guard unit's armoury was broken into and all those M60's went walkabout. Not to mention where a few turned up.

The US needs to introduce gun controls now, with a requirement to register all held weapons and severe penalties for those found not complying. It would take a few years before most of the weapons got into the system, but the sooner you start the sooner you finish.

I believe most people would not be willing to spend time in prison for the fun of possessing a weapon, that because it was illegal, you couldn't take down the local range and play.

To keep insisting that every part of the Bill of Rights is relevant today, is a bit like enforcing the law in England that requires all men over a certain age to practice archery on the village green on whatever day it was.(unless they finally repealed that one) :)


Edited because I still can't spell :)
------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.



[This message has been edited by max_cont (edited 04 July 2001).]

Gog
4th Jul 2001, 15:52
Glad you took it as it was intended.(hugs)
Its pretty hard to find a non partisan site for this.
Gog

(Edited for clarity)

[This message has been edited by Gog (edited 04 July 2001).]

Grainger
4th Jul 2001, 18:53
Everyone in the Swiss Army owns a Swiss Army Knife.

That's why no one messes with Switzerland.

max_cont
4th Jul 2001, 18:56
would that be the one with the tooth pick and tweezers? ;)

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

HugMonster
4th Jul 2001, 19:24
And the little thingy designed for getting stones out of Boy Scouts...

boofhead
5th Jul 2001, 01:07
Velvet (love that name), the militia also excluded the American aborigines and many states did not allow the blacks to take part either, except as labourers. But then the US was rather late with universal sufferage.

Hug, I did leave you the oportunity to make up your own mind about the proclivity to violence in the US, but I admit I was mealy-mouthed. I saw on a NRA website (you may well discount the opinions expressed there, but I doubt they would be allowed to get away with false numbers) that the white male part of the US population as a group actually has a lower rate of violence (as measured by arrests, gun offences and such) than do the same group in Western Europe. This of course means that some other group must be responsible for criminal activity way out of proportion to their size. I won't repeat what that group is, but as a hint it is not the white females.

And I was also less-than-honest when I said I had no idea how to correct the problem with violence in the US; stopping the war on drugs and fixing the economy (real tax cuts, new tax code, fair trade etc) would go a long way to making the US just as safe as any other developed country.

Licencing, registration and so on is just so that the government can identify who has the guns when it is time to take them away. It does not make guns safer or stop any crime. Gun control (take away the honest citizens' guns but leave them in the hands of the criminals) has never worked to control crime; quite the opposite.

Better to work with the problems as they exist rather than trying to wish them away.

HugMonster
5th Jul 2001, 01:20
Yet more mealy-mouthed racism.

"The blacks are responsible for the ills of society in modren-day America"

"The Jews are responsible for all the economic troubles of Greater Germany"

Anyone see any similarity between these two allegations?


[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 04 July 2001).]

TowerDog
5th Jul 2001, 01:22
Boofhead:

Your posting is almost certainly a red flag to the liberals.
(Let the slagging start... :))

The only way to even the numbers of inmates of different races is of course to have whites do more crime..

Then the Civil Liberty Organizations will indeed be happy: Politically correct numbers behind bars.

If somebody could just round up O.J. Simpson,
strap him down to 'Ol Sparky and hit the switch, then I would take my hat off to the US Justice sytem.
In the meantime, it is a joke..



------------------
Men, this is no drill...

Winston Smith
5th Jul 2001, 01:56
You know what?

The day the liberal "elite" will move into black neighbourhoods to embrace "diversity" I will seriously reconsider my "bigoted" opinions.

TowerDog
5th Jul 2001, 02:20
And furtermore:

This thread was really on US Gun Laws.

Well, here is my opinion:

Yea, the gennie us indeed out of the bottle with a couple of hundred million guns floating around in society.
I think the police should force their way into every home, starting with the inner cities, confiscate every gun they can find, including stopping every car on the street to search for guns:

Destroy the guns and severly limit production of more firearms.

Then close down all gun shops and gun shows and jail for life anybody being caught with an illegal handgun.

Perhaps then the school shootings and senseless murders and drive-by shootings end.

The cost would of course be more Government control and less "Freedom", but on the upside, 30,000 lives a year could be saved.

It is a proven fact that there is too many nut cases, criminals and idiots wandereing around with guns and they think it is "cool"
to shoot and kill.

Perhaps they have seen to many movies and have no idea of reality and consequences of actions, yet the victims are paying the price of this madness and love affair with guns every day.

The NRA can kiss my arse.



------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[This message has been edited by TowerDog (edited 04 July 2001).]

Winston Smith
5th Jul 2001, 02:27
Though I'm generally not a supporter of the US judicial system, I would certainly welcome a flood of class-action lawsuits against Hollywood (and the TV stations) for incitement to violence and brutality.

[ :)My 100th post! :)]

trolleydollylover
5th Jul 2001, 02:52
Tower Dog that would really be a utopia.

I personnally ****in hate guns, I don't find them glamourous, or sexy and as for those who use figures and quotes grow up!

Hug I never doubted that you have some experience but I am not to bothered how much. I agree with some of your points. (the weapon mentioned does everything that it is supposed to and even has a bottle opener as well)!

This post certainly is bringing in more varied views than I first thought, so thank you all for your enlightening conversation.

PS does anybody read their posts before sending them, or are others as illiterate as me.

Velvet
5th Jul 2001, 03:23
Oh well boofhead honey - that's okay then - as long as women are on a par with red Indians. Guess I'll just have to make do with my Swiss Army Knife, the one with the toothpick and the horses doovas thingy. Mine also has a corkscrew ;)

WhatsaLizad?
5th Jul 2001, 07:48
It's not "mealy mouthed racism" to point out that 60% of violent crime is committed by 6% of the population. Unfortunatley it is one demographic group, not white females.

Without this, the U.S. crime rate compares favorably or better with the rest of civilized Europe. Maybe we can include everything geographically down through Greece and then compare the behaviour of Europe with the U.S.

The rest of the drivel here is typical of a state supported incestual little group. I gotta love the clown that says the goverment should search every home for "illegal" weapons. No wonder we tossed your arses' out for independence. (happy Independence day, this was written on the 4th :) )

One thing I really enjoy is the very liberal "European" who emigrates here and after a while veers far "right" in their political stance. After a while here, they see the light. I've flown with enough Norwegians, Brits, French to see it.

This whole argument should quiet down in 50 years when your liberal utopia is overrun with 3rd world people who will like the fact they can vote to take anything they'd like, given the precendence set by those like yourselves.

Enjoy.

TowerDog
5th Jul 2001, 09:47
Whatsalizad:

Hmm, guess my posting did not hit the spot?

You would rather have another 30,000 people a year killed by idiots with guns than clean out the streets?

"State Supported Incestual Little Group" ?

No, not supported by anything but common sense.
If you don't understand any of the above...keep waving the flag till we all are dead. Then you won.


If ya get enough support , ya may be able to kill twice the number, all in the name of paranoia and NRA hysteria.

Me Norwegian, Brit or French?

US Citizen spoken here.


Suggest you look at the numbers and sober up.

Yup, it is 4th of July and we should celebrate beeing free rather than fearing all the lose guns with idiots holding on to the triggers.

If you are still confused: Read the above postings once more and try not to move your lips as you go along....




------------------
Men, this is no drill...

trolleydollylover
5th Jul 2001, 10:33
Ha Ha!!!LOL

By the way does anybody know who burnt down the White house.

When will America get a proactive Foreign policy and not a reactive Knee-jerk reactionary one. I am afraid to say the British are the same, generally following the French.

I'd rather
5th Jul 2001, 12:51
I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Tower Dog on something!!

The right to bear arms is an anachronism that doesn't belong in a modern society. There are too many nutters out there and too many people who are just careless - how many reports do we hear of some little kid getting hold of Daddy's gun, with tragic results? Now should someone who doesn't have to sense to (i) unload it and (ii) lock it up be allowed anywhere near a gun? I don't think so...

I should add that I don't want all guns banned; I have no problem with responsible people (see max-cont's posting earlier in the thread)owning a shotgun for sport/hunting (yeah, yeah - I know you can't guarantee that the odd one won't in fact be responsible but...). It seems to me that we've got it right in this country. I wouldn't want to live somewhere where, in order to feel safe, I had to carry a gun.

Winston Smith
5th Jul 2001, 14:10
TowerDog,

please confirm: you were SERIOUS about "the police should force their way into every home"?

trolleydollylover,

so what is your idea of a "proactive Foreign policy"? Even more meddling in other people's affairs?

TowerDog
6th Jul 2001, 00:39
Winston Smith:

"Am I serious about police forcing their way into every home?"

Yes, unless somebody out there has a better idea on how to confiscate all the illegal guns in homes, cars etc.

I will be the first one to open my house to the search teams.
A rather small price to pay for saving thousands of lives a year.

Of course the above will never happen, too many folks have a love affair with their guns and they have GOD, the Constitution and NRA on their side.

Perhaps enough people will wake up and say stop after several thousand more murders, school shootings and so on, but for many it will be too late then.



------------------
Men, this is no drill...

Winston Smith
6th Jul 2001, 01:27
In this case I am serious when I say that I'd prefer to live in a state governed by someone like ocb rather than in your Big Brother Paradise! - But enjoy! I'm afraid it's coming anyway...

WhatsaLizad?
6th Jul 2001, 06:30
Towerdog,

I'll have to ask for some forgiveness from some of the Europeans after reading your profile.

You live in Ft. Lauderdale? And you have a anti-gun stance? That is absolutley hilarious!
I'll forgive a North-Europe prunner for his ignorance, but you take the cake.

I live near PBI and work out of MIA and FLL. I don't have a gun at the moment but plan on a purchase soon, and here is why. I feel safe at home and am the benefit of a well responding police force. Even without that ,3/4 of the direction of fire in my home would jeopardize my families safety. The drive to work is another story.

Either I-95 or the turnpike at an off hour can be a lonely place. Even worse is the 112 expressway from MIA to I-95. I get off my plane, jump in my car and hit that road within 10 minutes. The gun will be in case a Cuban cop shoots a Black man and its viewed unjustified by the citizens. In the early 1980's, they rioted for that reason, and pulled people out of their cars then killed them, ON THAT HIGHWAY. I tried the cellphone bit, If you aren't bleeding, you get a "No' Hablo'" then put on hold. Give me an elevated highway for 90 miles and I won't buy the gun.
The other situation would be for the aftermath of a major hurricane. I have spoken with enough calm rational pilots about the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. There wasn't any law there, and the gunfire started every night. One pilot I flew with was stuck away while his wife dealt with the scum showing up every day looting. But for guys like you, it was just citizens in need. Go stand at Sunrise and US-1 with a jug of water after a Hurricane and give me your anti-gun garbage after that.
A gun is not some "light sabre" that will majically solve ones problems, although regretably many think it will. Along with it comes the need to be trained in its safety, strengths and weaknesses.
If you want some major law enforcement action to save many lives, start with driving in south Florida. I have gotten a little tired of Latins driving 100mph, and Islanders driving 25mph on I-95, many with small children without safety seats, (no insurance of course). Solve that problem first, then I might listen to your arguments.

Think about it next time your stuck in traffic on the 17th street bridge.

TowerDog
6th Jul 2001, 06:41
Okay Winston, you live where ya like, and lets hope your children survive tomorrows
day at school.

If not, well at least you were free to collect guns, screw your's and other people's kids.
Collateral damage I guess?

More importantly, you have your toys to play with. Makes ya feel manly and powerful?

Happines is a loaded gun....




------------------
Men, this is no drill...

TowerDog
6th Jul 2001, 07:42
Whatsalizad:

Got yer message and I have more questions than answers:

Ya are asking forgiveness from Europeans?
Uh, a bit lost here.

"For guys like you it was just a citizen in need?"

Again, don't understand.

Let me try this scenario: You are afraid of being the only honest citizen in town without a gun, whereas all the bad guys are not only out to get you, but they carry heat?

You feel scared and lonely without the 44 strapped onto your hip?

(I would too, in certain places in Africa where they really are out to get you.)

I have lived in Ft. Lauderdale 2 1/2 years, and before that in Dallas, TX for 10.
Never owned a gun here or in Texas, but all my friends and neigbors did.
(They were on the look out for the government, the Mexicans, the blacks and any other group out the get 'em...Perhaps including the Nortern Europeans.... :))

Have not been shot at on a regular basis, althougt it was close over in the Desert Shield Operation: Saddam kept firing (Empty) test missiles to see what the reaction would be...(No reaction)

Spent time in Angola when the Civil War started in 1974. (Did not carry heat, got away.)

Lived in St. Thomas in 1985 when the race riots surfaced. Lootings and beatings left and right. The slogan of the day was: "Kill the White Rabbit"..
If I had a gun and if I had used it, I would still be in jail.

As for needing guns driving down I-95 after a hurricane, well tiger, if ya think ya need it to survive, by all means.
Blow away the bad guys and see yourself as the hero in a cowboy movie.

Cranking out guns and selling 'em to nut-cases, idiots, criminals, and folks with an IQ equal to their shoe size: Do you think this is an excellent idea in the long run?

If so, yeah, get a bigger gun to shoot back and you are all happy.

Or stop the madness by collecting all guns and the worst you would face driving down I-95 at night would be some guy with a broom handle out to get you.

(I know, my opinion is only that, and it will never work because of guys with small penises needing a big gun to feel secure, but hey, it is a good thought?)

Now, off you go to the NRA web site, get emotional support and re-insurances that you are indeed one of the good guys, GOD is on your side, etc., and uh, screw every one of the 30,000 gun-fire victims in the US.
They just did not have a big enough guns. Their own stupid fault: Idiots, probably from out of town and they never understood the importance of a loaded gun.

------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[This message has been edited by TowerDog (edited 06 July 2001).]
Edited for clarity and then some..

[This message has been edited by TowerDog (edited 06 July 2001).]

fenian15
6th Jul 2001, 09:49
Tower Dog and Trolleydollylover,

I'm new on this board...I've been reading your posts with interest. Since you two are obvious experts in the field, I wonder if you could tell me how many accidental shooting deaths there were here in the U.S. last year. I seem to have misplaced those statistics. Thanks.

------------------

never_a_victim
6th Jul 2001, 11:26
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.
Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars.
The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%.
In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort and expense was expended in "ridding society of guns."


It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

[This message has been edited by never_a_victim (edited 06 July 2001).]

max_cont
6th Jul 2001, 11:52
We have gun control in the UK.

0 people rounded up.
0 people exterminated.

The trouble with extreme views on BOTH sides of the argument, is that you are so emotionally involved, you can't think rationaly.

I would submit, that anyone who gets so worked up about this subject is highly likely to lose it on other matters of judgement. Therefore, not a fit person to own a firearm.

PS Still going fo the record :)

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

[This message has been edited by max_cont (edited 06 July 2001).]

never_a_victim
6th Jul 2001, 12:06
"We have gun control in the UK.
0 people rounded up.
0 people exterminated."

Just Wait.

There will always be evil people in the world, no matter how "civilized" it has become. A crimeless utopia will never exist, and no matter what tools will be used, criminals will always be there to rape, rob, and murder innocent people.

C. M. Wolf
6th Jul 2001, 12:12
Very well then! This site looks to be a fine place to find out who now believes in Socialism/Fascism and who doesn't.

So let's see...

[trollydollylover, Says; "I personally ****in hate guns..." ]

Well, I personally think you should never own one. Here in America we do our best to keep guns, and in fact any/all weapons and other dangerous objects, away from 'Haters'. We Americans feel that Haters have a deep set illness that tends to be acted out in violence upon others, suddenly and unexpectedly. I thank God that you DON'T wish to own any firearms. I think you would be just as dangerous to yourself as you would be to others, much like trusting a moron with a stick of dynamite and a book of matches. A huge mistake.

[TowerDog says; "I think the Police should force their way into every home, starting with the inner cities, conficate every gun they can find, including stopping every car on the street to search for guns:..." ]

Oh really. So TowerDog, do you favor the Nazi like form of Fascism with these SS/Gestapo like tactics on Citizens or the Red Guard's Socialism of Marx/Stalin?
TowerDog, if you knew for a fact that these armed Citizens would resist Government Law Enforcement Agents from forcing their way into their homes, and resist with equal or maximum force, would you still say that's exactly what should be done? How many Citizen's lives would it be worth to you in order for the Population of a Nation to be disarmed, none, some, how many?
Do you have any idea of the definition of- 'Inalienable'? In your own words, can you explain it so that most anyone/everyone could understand it?

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf


[This message has been edited by C. M. Wolf (edited 06 July 2001).]

C. M. Wolf
6th Jul 2001, 12:41
Hummm...

[max_cont says; "We have gun control in the UK.

0 people rounded up.
0 people exterminated." ]

Yes, you certainly DO have gun control in the UK, except for maybe criminal gun control.

So tell me max_cont, what were the Violent Crime stats in the year 1990 that involved guns and what are the Violent Crime stats in the year 2000 that involved guns, within the UK?
How many perpetrators that used guns while acting out crimes on citizens were prosecuted and jailed in the UK for the years 1990 and 2000?
How many Citizens were prosecuted and jailed while simply defending their home/family from criminals invading/assalting their home/family in the UK for the years 1990 and 2000?

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

max_cont
6th Jul 2001, 13:07
N.A.V, Gun control already exists in the USA. I'm prety sure you don't hand out .357 mag's with the pills in your secure mental institutes.

Why don't you want firearmes to be restricted to "fit persons" with a valid reason to own one.

Your, "just wait" response to my post, demonstrates my point about not being rational enough to make sensible judgements in certain situations very nicely.

Are you honestly suggesting that HM Government is planning to set up extermination camps!!!

I would hate to be on the wrong end of a firearm that you held. You'd be so wound up, you'd probably pull the trigger accidentally. No doubt you would try to justify your error and you might even get away with it. But I bet you would scream bloody murder, if it was a cop who made that mistake.


------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

max_cont
6th Jul 2001, 13:44
C.M.Wolf, I don't have the statistics to hand about violent crime in the UK.

IMO since statistics are for the most part incomplete or flawed at the compilation stage, they're mostly garbage anyway.

The recent case of a householder being jailed for shooting a criminal. Well the criminal had been scared off, he was runnining away, he was outside the house, he was shot in the back.

As far as I know, the law permits me to defend myself, using the minimum force necessary. Ie, if I truly belive my life or that of my family is in danger and there is no other way, I can use lethal force. Shooting someone as they run away with my TV does not constitute a threat to my life.

Armed police don't automaticaly open fire on a suspect as they run away. If they did, you'd get riots.... oh yeah you've already done that.

A fit person? If my next door neighbour was a disturbed psychopath, I'd probably feel a little nervous if he could just wander down to the local range and buy an assault rifle. How'd you feel?

The adults who leave weapons lying around for their kids to get their hands on, are irresponsible and not fit.

Most parents are Not in this catagory and would never leave say, a power saw plugged in and a child alone with it all day. Why do it with a pistol?

I belive there is nothing to fear from gun control, as long as you are a fit and responsible person.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.



[This message has been edited by max_cont (edited 06 July 2001).]

The Guvnor
6th Jul 2001, 13:45
As I've said previously, it's a case of everything has its place. I certainly carried my Sig P226 24 hours a day in Africa - long with an MP5K or Sites Spectre in the car and an HK53 if things were getting really interesting. All of those were legally owned and licenced; and I never went loopy and shot people who weren't trying to TWEP me.

I don't have them in the UK however; and nor do I have them here in the States which based on what I'm reading here seems to be more of a war zone than Burundi or the DRC!

Strange that. There seems to be a few things missing compared with what I've experienced in Africa -

* I haven't seen roadblocks, where people are taken out of vehicles and summarilyu shot or beaten if they are from the wrong tribe

* I haven't seen cases where the local state security service visits you at 2am and you disappear

* I haven't seen bodies lying in the road every morning

* I haven't had cops/army/militia on drugs stop me and demand 'dash' at gunpoint.

On the other hand, I have seen:

* airport style metal detectors and xray machines installed at schools

* kids shooting other kids

* family and friends being killed by trigger happy people because they came in the wrong door; or the floodlights weren't working; or they were doing something unexpected.

America isn't a country in a state of civil war. It's a country that's divided by itself; by people who think that they are better than anyone else - and very strangely for a country made up almost entirely of immigrants - are incredibly xenophobic.

You guys need to get a grip on yourselves - and a good place to do that is with the things that wipe yourselves out.

Winston Smith
6th Jul 2001, 15:28
TowerDog,

please read my posts before responding. Apart from the fact that I live in the European Union and cannot legally acquire or possess a firearm, I do not feel the need, at the present time and at my present location, to have "a toy to play with", as you call it. Situations change, though, and unfortunately not for the better, it seems.

By the way, have you ever thought about the "collateral damage" a house-to-house search would produce?

-

never_a_viction,

almost excellent post! But please acknowledge the fact that it was the Weimar Republic which had enacted strigent gun control laws in 1928. Hitler actually relaxed them later. For some odd reason, he could obviously feel much more safe than many of today's beloved leaders. Or did you ever see him driving around in some bullet-proof "pope-mobile"?

That "Hitler rounded up all the guns" is a myth, probably constructed by the gun lobby to strengthen the hurray-patriots like ocb in their belief.

trolleydollylover
6th Jul 2001, 16:14
Gents

I never professed to be an expert on this subject and I certainly have not become a fanatic about weapons.

I personnaly do not have the same views as many of you. I do hate guns and the reason is I have seen first hand what they can do and I will not try to baffle you with statistics. Many of you may well be aware that 87% of statistics are made up or changed to suit the veiw.

I do not want this to degenerate into a slagging match, if I did I would suggest that America supports the IRA.

So lets not get personal and have a discussion like grown ups.

I do not want to get into the Pro's and Con's of US Foreign Policy.

As for C.M. Wolf it is a pity that you dont have an e-mail address so that I can tell you my experience of weapons and terrorism. It is not somthing for this post.

OldAg84
6th Jul 2001, 17:58
The trouble with gun round-ups is the criminals don't often turn in their weapons.

In my "sleepy" neighborhood there were two home invasions- my one neighbor put together his shotgun- he has kids- and went downstairs- they were gone- no doubt they were lucky, as I am sure shots would have been fired.

As it was they got away with a wallet and carkeys, which by the way, started the car they stole.

So my neighbor spent the better part of a day dealing with the police, credit card companys, house insurance (to replace the door that was kicked in), and replacing the door frame where it was damaged.

They felt violated- no sh!....

Were the perpetrators high!!! desperate!!! Who knows-but it is scary.

Yes, there is a risk in having a gun in your home. But that's his choice.

If somebody tries to trend this into "kids are getting shot in schools".. that has to do less with firearms and more with lousy parenting and adult supervision. But that's another thread.


Was that a rant?? It felt good....

max_cont
6th Jul 2001, 18:06
That's not a rant, that's a reasoned argument.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

max_cont
6th Jul 2001, 18:27
TDL, I have no doubt you are very sincere.

But with your logic, you would have to hate cars because of the carnage that they can bring if not used properly. They kill more each year in the UK than firearms.

Direct your hate to where the blame really lies. The terrorists who commited the murders and attrocities in the first place.

The tools they use include fertiliser and diesel oil. Do you hate that as well?

Off topic,I agree with you, strange how the US executes their own domestic terrorists. Yet will readily equip another Sovereign Nation's terrorists. But that's for another debate.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

Charmedlyfe
6th Jul 2001, 19:25
OK, time for a reality check.

I've been a LEO (law enforcement officer) in the US for six years. I've been to grad school (law), and I graduated 'With Honors' from my state's police academy. I've been a patrol officer, Field Training officer, and firearms training adjunct. I've been assigned to a SWAT team (point for an entry team, secondary sniper). I've seen more 'Very Bad Things' than the average cop.

In my time, I've investigated a LOT of killings. Interestingly enough, the majority have involved knives and club-type weapons. Firearms were rather infrequent tools. In fact, the VAST MAJORITY of firearm uses were in SELF-DEFENSE. Further, more children DROWN in the US than are injured by firearms. My best friend (an emergency room doctor) told me that a person is SEVERAL TIMES more likely to die from a stabbing rather than a gunshot wound.
If gun control (like yours) works so well, WHY are you equipping your officers with high-powered assault weapons? Hmmmm???
The USA is NOT a warzone. In fact, our violent crime rate is much lower than in england. It is safer to walk down a street in NYC than London. Perhaps in england it is acceptable to allow women to be raped and strangled without any chance of self protection, but NOT HERE! (worked several cases where women defended themselves)
I don't think you have a right to criticize the US, given your own history and current policies.
From what I've read of your understanding of the firearms/self defense issue, mad cow disease is much worse there than I imagined....

[This message has been edited by Charmedlyfe (edited 06 July 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Charmedlyfe (edited 06 July 2001).]

trolleydollylover
6th Jul 2001, 23:06
Charm...a good post and I do have sympathy with the idea of a weapon for self. Although I definately dont agree that you are more likely to survive a shooting than a knifing. Unless it is a spud gun!

I do have a problem with gun clubs but since they have been regulated I can live with that. I am all for common sense. However in the UK there is national outrage at a shooting. We have had very few drive by's and this is between rival drug groups. I understand about the HK's that the Police carry in only armed response cars. Very few Bobby's are armed.

In my home town of Liverpool where there were several shooting incidents over turf in 98-99, there have been no shootings since.

If the bad lads continue to blow each other away then go to in boys. I cannot remember the last time there was an armed house robbery. The last time that happened a farmer shot two young boys for breaking into his home. One was killed and the farmer got Life.

I am still not convinced, and you will be hard pressed to find many Brits who would be by your arguements.

Off now to Nice for the weekend so I look forward to your reply on Tuesday.

fenian15
6th Jul 2001, 23:37
Well, trollydollylover, if you don't have statistics to support your argument, then how can we have a well though out discussion of the issue? One of the statistics that may surprise you is the PER CAPITA murder rate in industrialized countries. You'll have to bear with me on this, since I can't find the link I want; in a nutshell, though, the per capita murder rate in the U.S. is below several countries like Japan, which prohibits civilian gun ownerhip, to the best of my knowledge.

To make matters worse, you admit to not having statistics to support your argument, yet resort to smarmy, pedantic comments about our Constitution.

In England, you have already given up just about every right we Americans take for granted...The Emergency Powers Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which the Government can invoke for POLITICAL offenses, have precluded Habeus Corpus, right to jury trial, right to face one's accuser, right to silence, freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, etc.

Oh, yeah..then there's censorhip by the Government of ANYTHING they don't want the general public to see. Isn't the MoD trying frantically to prevent the airing of a TV documentary exposing the Force Recon Unit and their little holiday in Northern Ireland as we speak? I can assure you the hue and cry would be deafening over that here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the British Government pull the license of a TV station back in the '70s for airing a program it didn't like? If you enjoy living under those circumstances, more power to ya. After all, your government knows what's best for you.

You hate guns, great...don't own one. But to dismiss LEGAL gun owners in the United States is "nutters", or in other perjorative terms, doesn't make much of an argument.

There are millions of gun owners in the United States that have never been in trouble with the law, who use firearms for a variety of lawful purposes, including recreational shooting, self defense, hunting, etc. This right IS ensured by the Constitution...you might not think much of it, but trust me, I DO. A cursory reading of the debate by our founding fathers concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms makes it very clear the importance they attached to it; there is a reason it's the SECOND amendment. And, to those millions of legal gun owners like myself, it's a right that brings with it a tremendous responsibility that we take seriously. You don't have to understand it, or condone it.

Now, if you visit this country, keep in mind that as long as you're not dealing crack in the inner city, or in a gang, you probably won't get shot by anyone. As a matter of fact, you are 253 times more likely to be killed here by a DOCTOR than by a gun. So...don't get sick!!

I will do my best to find the link I'm looking for re per capita murder rates. In the mean time, please enjoy this quote from Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, from "The Gulag Archipelago":

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand.-- The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"



------------------


[This message has been edited by fenian15 (edited 06 July 2001).]

trolleydollylover
7th Jul 2001, 01:19
Fenien

Sorry to rattle your cage. However I dont need statistics when I have common sense.

Fenien are you by chance an Irish American?

Winston Smith
7th Jul 2001, 01:56
Thanks, Fenien!

It appears that some people among us simply have a problem with the concept of freedom. Though they will heavily deny it, most so-called "liberals" actually have a very authoritarian mindset! While they love to ram their skewed world-view down our throats, the mere thought of opposing "nanny" is a nightmare for them. One day, however, most of them will inevitably find out that the government doesn't love them as much as they love it...

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 02:41
[max_cont says; "C.M.Wolf, I don't have the statistics to hand about violent crime in the UK." ]

How convenient, and I'll wager you have no intention of ever looking them up either. Which is more than apparent with your next statement;

[IMO since statistics are for the most part incomplete or flawed at the compilation stage, they're mostly garbage anyway." ]

Well, isn't that just a wonderful opinion for you. But since all these statistics ARE being used to disarm the worlds population, and the very same statistics ARE being used to legislate against Legal Firearms Ownership,(even though they ARE garbage?), don't you think you should make damned sure these 'statistics' ARE correct FIRST?! Or is it also your opinion that 'Garbage Laws' that could very well destroy people's lives, should be made and enforced, based solely on these 'Garbage Statistics'?!

Before we go further into discussing each individual situation or case, why don't we just have a very close look at all those
'Garbage Statisics' first. Let's really see just what the Politicians and Lawmakers are basing their decisions on or believing in themselves.
You know, try your hand at getting them 'to hand'.

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

fenian15
7th Jul 2001, 03:48
trollydollylover,

what possible difference could it make to this discussion what my geneology is?

Oh, in the interests of fair play...I am wrong about the per capital murder rates...we are the leaders (make crowd cheering noises).

------------------

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 03:53
My, my, How Grand, Wise, And Noble you seem The Guvnor, and quite the little vocabulary too. Well let's just see.

[The Guvnor says; "America isn't a country in a state of civil war. It's a country that's divided by itself; by people who think that they are better than anyone else - and very strangely for a country made up almost entirely of immigrants - are incredibly xenophobic."

"You guys need to get a grip on yourselves - and a good place to do that is with the things that wipe yourselves out." ]

'A country that's divided by itself...' And just what do you mean? That we are a country that's alone in the world, or we are a country that's divided within itself into more than one group? Or do you simply wish to over generalize ALL Americans into some unreal and dispariging opinion,(your's), and just leave it at that?

'...by people that think they are better than anyone else.' Just EXACTLY where do you get your information from, only those decendants of the British people that lost to the Americans during the War for Independence?! Again, have you nothing other than narrow minded, unreal, and disparaging generalizations about Americans? Or does having to be beholding to the United States and their People for literally saving Britain and Europe from Nazi Occupation/Destruction during WWII merely leave you feeling somehow begrudging and/or bitter? I certainly hope that you Brits don't somehow blame Americans for the 'Sun Now Setting On Your Flag'!

"...xenophobic." Can you honestly say that this is at no time a good thing? Or that the UK itself shouldn't have exercised some of this back in the late 1950's when the European Union began to apply social/political/economic pressures to the UK? HaHaHaHa!

Yes, I do think we 'guys' need to get a grip on ourselves.
But, how is it that you feel so comfortable pointing out the splinter in our eye while you totally ignore the log in your own eye?!

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf



[This message has been edited by C. M. Wolf (edited 07 July 2001).]

JetAgeHobo
7th Jul 2001, 04:43
Was sitting at a Independance Day fireworks celebration listening to the music and watching the show and this thread came to mind. (that's pretty sick in itself) And thought, so ok, I could have a gun if wanted,(I don't)most of the world can't. I can even bitch about it on the internet (in some countries you can't)--but on the other hand, if I want to celebrate this holiday by shooting off a bottle rocket or a firecracker, I'm probably a felon....go figure.

From the postings I'm seeing, seems like a lot of folks outside the U.S. seem to have fallen victim to the sensationalist new media hype. How many schools didn't have shootings this year. How may guns in circulation haven't been fired for years if ever at all? How many people lived their lives safely today?

Yet what makes the news is the small amount of crazies that are out there. And that leaves a lot of us, even in the US scratching our heads and wondering just what the heck is going on. It's not the guns, its the people!!! The guns are just a more efficient way to get it done.

When popular music extoles the virtues of cop killing, when a popular slang term amoung kids is shorthand for gang style shooting, when some woman gets depressed and drowns her 6 children rather methodicaly in a bathtub, you've got a serious social problem. Getting rid of the guns here isn't going to solve it at this point, seems like the situation is too far down the tubes. What has happened is regard for human life has deminished somewhat. I don't know the answer, but I have a feeling that trying to round up all the guns would start a second civil war.
--------------------------------------------
It's not a matter of where I am, it's a matter of when I am.

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 05:09
[TrollyDollyLover writes; "As for C. M. Wolf it is a pity that you don't have an e-mail address so that I can tell you my experience of weapons and terrorism. It is not somthing for this post." ]

Humpf! Pity not TrollyDollyLover, Please, don't let the fact that you don't know my e-mail address stop you and feel free to tell me anyway. If they are such excellent and heroic acts, then I would think everyone would wish to know,(I certainly do, at any rate). That is, unless you are wholly taken over by some kind of fit that causes you to speak things that you don't really mean, Touretts Syndrome, I think it's called. You don't have anything like that, right? I might have been thrown by your comment; "I personally ****in hate guns."

You see, here in America, we hold our people that are proficient with weapons and use them to hinder or halt terrorism/crime in a high esteem and have no qualms about speaking of these things in public, without fear. That is exactly what our 1st Amendment Right is all about. You know, one of the very Amendments that is protected by our Second Amendment, expressing that 'We The People' having the 'Inalienable Right To Keep And Bear Arms'. Which allows us Americans to guard against those tyrannies and oppressors that would remove our Right To That Freedom Of Speech.

Oh, but you Brits don't really have that, do you? 'Unspoken Trust' I think it's called in Britian. Hummm. Of course we all know that there's never been any government or monarchy throughout all of history that's ever deserved anything less than absolute 'Unspoken Trust' of it's people, right?

It does seem that you DO have a lot of problems, with guns, firearms, and the Freedom of people to use them to save their lives and family's lives without heavy restrictions. Are you familiar with the word; "Un-infringed"? It's right up there with "Inalienable". This was in one of my questions that TowerDog never bothered to address in an earlier post of mine.

I certainly do hope that this is not going to become some sort of habit; Not addressing questions because the answers might be either too revealing or unliked. But then, I guess this may quite well say very much, all by itself. Wouldn't it.

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf



[This message has been edited by C. M. Wolf (edited 07 July 2001).]

TowerDog
7th Jul 2001, 05:46
C.M.Wolf:

Yes I saw your question, do you want me to look it up in the dictionary for you?

Not much more to add this topic, stated my opinion loud and clear.

Yup, not everybody agree, understood.
Some people does not value human life enough to take extreme measures to clean the streets of guns.

This is a Democracy and if enough people vote for it, guns may be outlawed.
(Yes, I know that song: "Then only the bad guys would have guns." Well, not if we..Etc.)

Going to bed, you guys keep convincing yourselves why you need a bunch of guns to keep the Goverment from enslaving you to the salt mines.

Good Luck.


------------------
Men, this is no drill...

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 07:20
Hello TowerDog,
[You said; "Yes I saw your question, do you want me to look it up in the dictionary for you?" ]

Is that what I asked of you, or is that only your slight comprehension of what you read? Wander on by that post again sometime. I certainly DON'T need 'you' to look up any definitions for me. I'm under the impression that you aren't quite sure just what 'Inalienable' means or how it's best applied.

While you're at it though, try looking up 'Republic' also. I don't really know just what country you're in, but here in America, we have a 'Republic' not a Democracy! No group of people may at any time vote away, vote to nullify, nor vote to 'Infringe' upon the Rights of any Americans!

Now I'm sure that in England this may be done at the drop of a hat, but that's exactly WHY we Americans Revolted against the Crown and won our Independence from England! I suggest a little reading up on some good ol' American History for you, start with the Federalist Papers and Founding Documents. I think they'll really help you out here.

Now if by 'take extreme measures', you mean take away my Inalienable Rights simply because there are a few too many ill-informed, paranoid people that trust what they hear on the TV's evening news as Gospel, your damned right I refuse to take those 'extreme measures'! I would think any/all True Freedom Loving Americans WOULD!

As you lay you down to sleep, keep this in mind, "It's not about GUNS, it's about CONTROL!" Then feel 'Free' to WAKE UP and take a real good look at the information that you're being fed and just WHO'S feeding it to you! A little research will bring you a whole lot of Truth!

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf



[This message has been edited by C. M. Wolf (edited 07 July 2001).]

The Guvnor
7th Jul 2001, 07:30
C M Wolf - you appear to have conveniently ommitted the fact that in both the First and Second World Wars, the USA was several years late in joining the fray; and that its overall contribution, whilst gratefully received at the time, is in the cold light of history somewhat dubious.

Of the conflicts the US has been involved in post WW2, it has been soundly beaten in at least two (SE Asia plus Somalia) and the amount of 'collateral damage' done to Panama City and Grenada was out of all proportion to the objectives. Finally, you seem to have also forgotten that more British troops were killed by US 'friendly fire' during Desert Storm than were killed by Iraqi forces.

As for terrorism in the US - your justification for bearing arms - the overwhelming majority of terrorist incidents have been carried out by the very 'militia' forces and ultra-right happy-clappy fundamentalist types that allege they are 'protecting' the average American citizen.

Doesn't quite gel, does it?

Rollingthunder
7th Jul 2001, 08:27
This is, unfortunately, a never win argument.

This is, finally, the 21st.century and in the first world, at least, the carrying of a deadly weapon as a basic foundation of society does not point to a sufficiently civilized or safe society.
Having the anyoldtime ability to kill a human being with a firearm has no place on the streets of our neighbourhoods. If you think western civilization is in decline, guns will be a large sordid part of the reason. If I ever think that, to be safe in my home, or town or city, I have to have a gun handy, I will move. In a shot.

I don't think the average citizen is smart enough to hold the responsibility of having a firearm. Present company excluded, of course, mostly.

------------------
[email protected]

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 09:56
Well the Guvnor, I have ommitted no facts,(conveniently or otherwise), nothing that was pertinent to the conversation. If you'll go back and re-read my post,(maybe a little slower), you'll see that I was asking questions so that you could be understood. Or is this just a way of your's to avoid answering anything that might disclose some distasteful realizations of a Socialist indoctrination to yourself, or a disdainful attitude that you may hold towards American Freedoms?

Tell me exactly What the timing and outcomes of these wars and conflicts have to do with your advocating the disarming of a Free Nation? Or are you simply attempting to justify your attitude and fears for something that you understand little of and are not willing to look further into for yourself.

Instead of twisting the conversation onto something it is not, try just addressing my questions to you.

[The Guvnor writes; As for terrorism in the US - your justification for bearing arms - the overwhelming of terrorist incidents have been carried out by the very 'militia' forces and ultra right-wing happy-clappy fundamentalists types that allege they are 'protecting' the average American citizen. ]

Oh really, Well I'm an American and live in America and I'm not aware of any such 'Terrorist Incidents' by these people that you have claimed. So I'm going to insist that you show me some sources or links to the information that you're talking about! By all means, you're welcome to use the entire 225 year history of the U.S. to do it too.

Or is this merely some Socialist/UN born media rhetorical rumors that you have accepted as 'Truths'?!

Frankly I think this last statement of yours is complete crap dis-information, I'll have you to prove what you said. Basicly, 'Put-up or Shut-up'. Let's have it.

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf



[This message has been edited by C. M. Wolf (edited 07 July 2001).]

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 11:16
Very well Rollingthunder, let's just take your beautiful little 'Sheeple like' scenario and run with it a bit;

You have a nice job that makes you a nice living for you and your family, but the area that you live in is getting a little rough, crime seems to be on the rise. Some people in your neigborhood aren't going out at night any more or are moving away.

Well realizing the area IS getting out of hand, even beyond what the police might be able to deal with in a timely manor, you too decide to transfer within your company and move you and your family to another area. The kids are moved to another school, have to make new friends, and basicly get used to a complete life change. They're young, they'll adapt no matter how hard or different things now are for them. Of course you and your wife know it's the lessor of the two evils and simply make the best of things. You both move away from good friends also and console your children with this in the hopes of gaining a sympathetic attitude with them. Oh well, they will adapt all the same.

A few years go by, you're well through the move and you're beginning to notice that this new area isn't really that much better. So a bit of concern starts to build. But nothing you can't handle. Then the Economy begins to go south, it seems to hit the county that you live in a little harder than some. Prices go up, violence becomes more prevailent, and there's now a mandatory police presents at the schools that your kids go to.
So you talk to your wife about moving again, except, this time it's not recieved well at all. But she's willing to do what you think is best, all the same. You go to look into transfering within your company again only to find out that the only job in another area is for a substantial cut in pay and it won't be open for another 8 months yet.
Well, you do the figuring and find out that you can get by if the wife goes to work and you cut back the amounts that you pay into the kid's collage funds. Maybe if you bought a cheaper car too.

8 months finally go by and your moving. The wife and kids have that same up-rooted feeling as before except it's taken by them a little harder this time. Things just don't seem to be working in as well as they did the last time. A little more stress, longer hours at work, and everyone's spending less time at home. But your all getting by for the most part. Then one of your kids has gotten into some trouble with a rough group of kids at school. This group has found out where your kid lives and is harassing your home and family. The Police tell you they know who the other kids are and say they'll double the watch on the neighborhood for awhile but there's nothing really that they can do unless those other kids are actually caught committing a crime. The stress and pressures is pretty heavy now on top of worrying about the safety of your home and family.

Yup, it looks like it's time to move again. Anything is better than protecting yourself or getting a gun. Because you truly believe that if the Police can't protect you, no one else can, right. Besides, you've got children in the house. You don't know how to deal with a gun in your house, let alone show your kids what to do and what not to do about the gun. Everything you hear in the news says that guns are bad, only some kind of evil or irresponsible person would have a gun in the same house with children. This confirms your beliefs, but you still don't feel better
So no matter how much you and your family feels like you're being herded like sheep by the big bad-element wolf-guys, it's simply better than risking making any kind of stand and just keep moving along, right? Heck, there's got to be a neighborhood that won't turn bad that you can afford, somewhere! Just bleet away and keep looking. Yup! That sounds like THE Life!

By the way, what do you think all this moving around, trying to find that safe area would cost you and your family?

Yup! BAAAAAAWWWDDDD Guns! :)

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf



[This message has been edited by C. M. Wolf (edited 07 July 2001).]

FloridaGW
7th Jul 2001, 12:29
All of you Anti-Gun idiots forget that the only reason you have the freedom and rights you have today is due to guns that were used to fight and win the wars for our independence and freedom. Ironic how none of you ever give credit to firearms for anything. I'd like to have seen us win our independence with a knife or bow and arrow. It wouldn't have happened! The fact that children get firearms and shoot people, has more to do with their parents not being responsible enough to raise and teach their children right from wrong. Firearms are not to blame, people are. It is easier to blame the weapon then to face the facts. The facts are that some parents these days are not fit to be parents.&lt;P&gt;
Owning a firearm is a right, like all other rights that many hundreds of thousands of Americans died for in many wars and battles in our history. Give up one right, and they will all eventually be lost. Be realistic! For those of you that say you wouldn't own a gun, I bet if you had a burglar in your house late at night, and you had to protect your family, the first thing on your mind would be "I WISH I HAD A GUN". Or would you rather call the cops and hope they get there before you get beaten, robbed, your children threatened or worse! Don't be stupid! Most that say they don't need firearms are used to being protected by those that do. Owning a firearm is not about "feeling manly", although most brainfarts would like to have you think so. It is our right! Car accidents kill more people every year than guns! Why don't we ban cars then to? That way you all can walk everywhere! he he, I bet you would want to own a gun then.&lt;P&gt;

Be smart! Not stupid********

Rollingthunder
7th Jul 2001, 18:51
C.M.Wolf.

I guess my point is that in five decades I have not had to take those actions. That is a measure of a reasonably safe society that does not feel obliged to arm everyone for personal safety. Further, this society is not heading in that dangerous direction. The arming of citizens indicates a partial failure of modern civilzed behavior, in peacetime. 250 mil firearms in private hands in the States? How many more are needed to really feel safe and secure? It's not a winning strategy.There has to be a better way forward.

TowerDog
7th Jul 2001, 19:37
C.M.Wolf:

Yes of course the US is an Republic, but also a Democracy: People vote.
Don't see much conflict there?

(If anything perhaps that US Citizen vote in this Republic, whereas in a Democracy that is not a Republic, the People vote. Well the people vote in the US also, but we vote for people to vote for us.)

Agree that wars are won with guns, and that we live in freedom because people fought and died for the freedom.
I did serve in the military and fired plenty of guns, just didn't fall in love with the things.

If my freedom and protection is assured by enough guns in nearby houses, I was not aware of it, but thanks for the heads up.

As for moving around to different towns and streets becuase the bad guys are slowly taking over: Yup, that would indeed be a good reason to clean the streets of guns.

Like many have said, the geenie is out of the bottle, the guns are already in bad hands: My opinion on the solution would be to confiscate all guns and quit making more.

(This is of course not realistic, and not a well laid out battleplan, just a simplified solution that would in theory solve the problem. I do however belive that gun owners can sleep well for a long time and not worry about anybody forcing their way into homes, step on their "Rights" and steal the guns.

So relax, enjoy your guns and don't belive any of the news reports about innocent people being killed on the streets (Or in schools) because too many lunatics, misfits, criminals, and mental cases are walking around with too many loaded guns.

Probably just communist propaganda anyway.
Can't trust them pink bastard's, they are just out to get your guns... :D

Wee Weasley Welshman
7th Jul 2001, 20:29
I quite like firearms. I was a good shot once. Captain of my ATC rifle team, shot at Bisley a couple of times, grew up largely on a farm with shotguns and my own air rifle...

And I feel *incredibly* proud to live in a country which has the most draconian gun laws in the Western world.

Dunblane must NEVER happen again. Simple.

Those that draw arguements based on long dead history are simply distracting themselves from the present and future reality. In a settled, largely urbanised, free market democracy there is no place for common access to firearms anymore.

I think the most telling truth is to compare the murder rates of the UK and US. QED.

WWW

Wee Weasley Welshman
7th Jul 2001, 20:48
The data below shows the murder rates, per 100,000 persons for countries and percentage households with guns:


United States 1997

Total Murders 6.8
Gun murders 4.61
Non gun murders 2.21
Households with guns 48.0%


England & Wales 1992

Total Murders 1.41
Gun murders 0.11
Non gun murders 1.30
Households with guns 4.7%


So thats 46.1 persons per million shot dead in the US plays 1.1 persons per million shot dead in the UK.

46 to 1 gentlemen. Those are mighty long odds for any arguement to take on...


WWW


(Murder rates from International Journal of Epidemiology (1998:27:216),

% households with firearms from Can Med Assoc J, Killias M (1993))

:rolleyes:

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 21:49
Well, How excellent for you Rollingthunder,
But because 'you' have never gone though any actions like this, are saying that no else has, or ever will? Of course since your life is nice and 'secure', then so everyone elses life is just as nice and secure and we should legislate all of 'Society' by the example of your life, right?

Tell me, what is that makes you think that because 'you' decide that being armed is un-necessary,(as per your life), that being armed is now un-necessary for everyone and these Rights must be legislated against or away?

[You write; "Furthermore, this society is not heading in that dangerous direction." ]

Please explain to me EXACTLY what 'direction' you do think this society IS heading in?

[You go on to say; "The arming of citizens indicates a partial failure of modern civilized behavior, in peacetime." ]

First of all, specifically define; "Modern Civilized Behavior" for the world, if you would be so kind. You DO have this completely backwards, BTW. It's not the arming of civilians during peacetime that denotes a failure,(partial or otherwise). It's the arming and massing of a standing Army during peacetime that shows a failure or breakdown of society on the Local, National, and International levels! This has been the case all throughout the whole of man's history! If you truly believe only you version, I'm afraid you are delusional, very mis-informed, and lack any kind of functioning knowledge of history.

Hummm, "safe and secure?", To exactly what degree do you really possess of these? Given the choice of guarding your own life by being armed or only dialing 911 and hoping that the Police show up in time, which of these choices is going to carry you through more scenarios of possible criminal acts against you, safely? How well would your answers fit the rest of the population that you share the planet with?

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

HugMonster
7th Jul 2001, 22:20
Wolf, your arguments, while robustly put, are rather more full of holes than I think you would prefer.

You state:-
-----------------------------------------
You see, here in America, we hold our people that are proficient with weapons and use them to hinder or halt terrorism/crime in a high esteem and have no qualms about speaking of these things in public, without fear. That is exactly what our 1st Amendment Right is all about. You know, one of the very Amendments that is protected by our Second Amendment, expressing that 'We The People' having the 'Inalienable Right To Keep And Bear Arms'. Which allows us Americans to guard against those tyrannies and oppressors that would remove our Right To That Freedom Of Speech.
------------------------------------------
Your first Amendment also protects the "right" of people to write rap lyrics extolling the virtue of shooting cops. Do you approve of that with the same enthusiasm? Think about it - are your rights so inalienable (a word upon which you appear to place great reliance)? Or would you not really rather have some limit placed upon what people are "free" to say? Unfortunately for your argument, there are already limits on the right of free speech in the USA as here in the UK. That right is limited, for example, by the laws of libel, you may not publicly exhort people to racial hatred and violence, etc. etc...

Further, you say:-
------------------------------------------
While you're at it though, try looking up 'Republic' also. I don't really know just what country you're in, but here in America, we have a 'Republic' not a Democracy! No group of people may at any time vote away, vote to nullify, nor vote to 'Infringe' upon the Rights of any Americans!
------------------------------------------

This also is not correct. I suggest you ask someone what it takes to amend the US Constitution. The Second Amendment will be repealed immediately enough people decide they wish it repealed. Your "rights" will therefore go up in a puff of smoke when the people decide they do.

I'd also be interested to know what you think the definitions of "Republic" and "Democracy" are... Perhaps you've allowed yourself to get confused by the names of your two principal political parties.

Lastly, you say:-
-------------------------------------------
I certainly do hope that this is not going to become some sort of habit; Not addressing questions because the answers might be either too revealing or unliked. But then, I guess this may quite well say very much, all by itself. Wouldn't it.
-------------------------------------------

Your most recent post was a whole hour after WWW posted the statistics on criminal use of guns vs. gun ownership in the USA and the UK. You wouldn't y any chance be ignoring that post because the answer might be either too revealing or disliked, would you? :D

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 22:32
TowerDog, Answer this specifically; 'Do you,(TowerDog), have the right to vote 'which' Rights I may exercise or 'when' I may exercise them, in your opinion?'

[TowerDog writes; "If my freedom and protection is assured by enough guns in nearby houses, I was not aware it, but thanks for the heads up." ]

Well, I don't recall giving you this 'heads up', but I imagine there are a great many things that you are not 'aware of'.

[And you wrote; "As for moving around to different towns and streets becuase the bad guys are slowly taking over: Yup, that would indeed be a good reason to clean the streets of guns." ]

Ok, we'll start with; Let's just call the "bad guys" what they really are, 'Criminals'. Because that's the REAL problem here, isn't it, Criminals using firearms against law abiding citizens and committing 'Crimes'? Tell me if this, for some reason, isn't correct.

Now TowerDog, Do us all a huge favor right now and run out to the street in front of your house, look 'carefully' up one side then the other, 'carefully' mind you. Then come back here and tell us all exactly how many guns are in the street right now! What do you say, how about a little 'Real Time' report here? What do you see?

"...the geenie is out of the bottle, the guns are already in bad hands:"

Just exactly 'What the Hell' are you talking about when you mention a 'geenie'?!
Guns are in 'Good Hands' also, Wouldn't you agree? Of course you're talking about conficating those too, right? So in your opinion, which 'Hands' should guns be confiscated from FIRST, the 'Good Hands' or the 'Bad Hands'?

One more question for you TowerDog, 'WHY do you have such a 'problem' directly answering the questions that I ask you?!

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

C. M. Wolf
7th Jul 2001, 23:26
Wonderful Wee W.W.,Finally an attempt to show some kind of REAL facts into this conversation. Except that you have ommitted any links and/or sources for your information. I could live with that, but your 'Facts' ARE NOT complete nor are they actually comparable, even to themselves. I'll explain further down.

Is this what some people talk about when they say the the 'Statistics are Incomplete or Flawed at the compilation stage'? Or is it that the piece-meal reporting of those facts is incomplete or flawed, or even changed to suit whoever wishes it?

If you'll look back at an earlier post of mine,(at the bottom of page 8), you'll see that I asked max_cont for the Violent Crime Stats for the years 1990 and 2000 and those that involed civilians and guns,(basicly). Go ahead Wee W.W. and give that a shot, and if you're feeling a bit ambitious, show them for the U.S.A., UK, Australia, and Canada.
Oh, and feel free to also post your sources, if you please,(actually, show them even if you don't 'please'). Thank You Very Much.

-&gt;&gt;&gt;I should have added; So that I might go and read what you have seen for myself. Links seem to work great for this.&lt;&lt;&lt;-

Ah just one more thing, By the way you compile your 'odds'...I STRONGLY recommend that you do not go gambling in Las Vegas nor Atlantic City! True 'odds' are found in a manor that's nothing like the way you find your's.

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: C. M. Wolf ]

HugMonster
7th Jul 2001, 23:47
Ah! Stung into action?

Sorry, Wolf, your post does not even attempt to answer the Welshman's post. Nor do you address the issues you say you would address.

I think all will e left with the impression that you are unable to answer...
:rolleyes:

Velvet
8th Jul 2001, 01:06
'Scuse me C M Wolf, but I get the impression from your posts (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't really like the English, nor approve of us. You sound and write just a tad like ocb - odd that. Oh, and I'm sure that God blesses everyone including the English.

Just one question - you talk of an inalienable right to bear weapons - but say nothing of the responsibility that comes with those rights. The right to kill, but not the responsibilty for that killing.

Actually as I understand it the 2nd Amendment actually States
'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. '

This I believe (from my studies of the American Constitution and history, which of necessity were somewhat limited, because I was also studying in depth British and European History) relates to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. Though I'm sure if you pointed us in the right direction we would find where it specifically states 'inalienable right to keep and bear arms'.

Now, unless you and all the other millions who hold weapons are part of a well-regulated militia, I don't think you are adhering to the spirit or the letter of this Amendment.

I don't understand why you equate rising prices with violence, nor why any school should have a mandatory police presence (I don't know of any school in the UK that has one). Nor do people generally have to keep moving just to keep their families safe. How odd that you do in a country which is so safe and secure with all those guns and weapons in public ownership.

Well it's amazing where all these Americans suddenly appeared from - a week ago and Pax couldn't even find 20, must be something we said. ;)


------------
quote on page 1 (Winston Smith):

I'm having that strange inkling that this thread is going to bloat to at least 10 pages during the next few days.
----------

Winston you were quite correct it has and more

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Velvet ]

Wee Weasley Welshman
8th Jul 2001, 01:18
At the bottom of my post I quoted my source. I reiterate:

(Murder rates from International Journal of Epidemiology (1998:27:216),

% households with firearms from Can Med Assoc J, Killias M (1993))


The facts are gun murders are 46 times higher in the US than in the UK. You can squirm all you like about inalienable rights and hypothetical freedoms - I choose the freedom not to be murdered above all else.

In the United Kingdom - a wee nation that invented parliamentary democracy no less - we are a democracy in which the people have spoken - NO GUNS.

The former colonies are of course free to choose their own path. It is perhaps unfortunate that it has so often in so many cases proved to be such a bloody and rocky path.

Kindest regards,

WWW

Rollingthunder
8th Jul 2001, 02:32
C.M.Wolf.
I was talking of my society, not your society. It seems your society, as far as firearm ownership goes, is heading in a dangerous direction. In ten years there will only be more guns out there, not less. That is a dangerous spiral and yes, changing that will be difficult if not impossible given the current American mindset.

One definition of "modern civilized behaviour" is the reasonable expectation not to have to worry that there is a good chance you might be shot on the way to the shop or in your home etc. and to not have to worry that in order to feel reasonably safe you need to be armed.
"Safe and secure" - Relatively speaking, I and my millions of neighbours are and you are less so. The stats back that up as WWW has kindly indicated.

You're right,standing armies in peacetime are an indication of a failure of civilization on a larger scale. Suggest you start a thread on that topic if you're interested.

I would also suggest that to think that an armed society is a safer society is delusional and very mis-informed.

C. M. Wolf
8th Jul 2001, 03:01
Well Hug Monster, You claim that {my arguements are rather more full of holes than 'you think' I would prefer. Hummm, we'll see.

[You write; "Your first Amendment also protects the "right" of the people to write rap lyrics extolling the virtue of shooting cops. Do you approve of that with the same enthusiasm? Think about it - are your rights so inalienable (a word upon which you appear to place graet reliance)? Or would you not really rather have some limit upon what people are "free" to say? Unfortunately for your arguement, there are ready limits on the right of free speech in the USA as here in the UK. That right is limited, for example, by the laws of libel, you may not publicly exhort people to racial hatrid and violence, etc. etc..." ]

Is that really what our First Amendment protects the right to do? But No, I, at no time, ever approve of any such thing,(neither enthusiasically nor otherwise).
Yes, I put a great reliance on the meaning 'Inalienable', I also put a great importance on the words Accountability, Responsibility, Honesty, Truth, Justice, and Faith.
So why is it that you equate something that you should be responsible for to an inalienable Right? Do you not understand the difference between the two, Rights and Actions?

[You go on to say; "This also is not correct. I suggest you ask someone what it takes to amend the US Constitution. The Second Amendment will be repealed enough people decide they wish it repealed. You "rights' will therefore go up in a puff of smoke when the people decide they do..." ]

So, by your reasoning and claims, any majority of people may vote your "right" to live away if and when they so decide to?!

How is it that you speak of Rights as though they were something that one man may give to another man?! If the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Bill of Rights were to some how burn away in a fire tomorrow, every single Right that they express would still remain! These Documents are no more the Grant of Inalienable Rights to every human being than were the men that wrote those Documents, able to Grant any other humans those Rights!
It's more than obvious that you have no understanding what an Inalienable Right really IS. Rights are something that no one man or any group of men may ever legislate/vote away or against. Only the Lord God has the Power to truly Give and/or Strip any man of those very Rights that he Created and as a Gift, bestowed apon ALL men EQUALLY!
I think you are in sore need of doing some research on these things. I STRONGLY recommend that you begin your research with the Holy Bible, God's Word. Then continue from there.

Answer this; 'Do you,(Hug Monster), have the Right to obey the Law or not to obey the Law? Isn't it 'your' Right to make that 'Choice'?

Hummm, It looks like you have a problem with the timing in which I respond to others posts. Well, It's completely and only my decision as to when I might respond to some post, isn't it?
Just as it's solely your decision to utterly disregard any and all of my posts if you may so wish to, 'isn't it'?
In fact, you're quite 'Free' to totally ignore my posts, or spit at 'your' monitor if my posts may show up on it, or you're 'Free' to print out my words, burn them, then stomp the ashes into the ground if you don't like them or my timing! Aren't You?

You see, you being 'Free' to do just that is 'your' Inalienable Right. Just as my Right to keep and bear arms, shall not be Infringed by any man or group of men however they may "decide" or 'choose' for me.

The Right or the Choice to exercise that Right is exactly what this thread is all about, isn't it?
When it really comes down to it, it's not about "Gun" Control at all, it's about just the Controling of other's lives as our fellow man would selfishly try to dictate to others! This comes from Greed, Ignorance, and Fear! The Anti-Gunners, or Anti-Freedom people of this Planet are in dire need of getting a grip on their own selfish feelings!


May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

[ 08 July 2001: Message edited by: C. M. Wolf ]

C. M. Wolf
8th Jul 2001, 05:11
Hello Velvet, Would you, Please, explain to me how you get the impression that I 'don't really like the English, nor approve of you'? Because the opposite is actually the truth. Not only that, but I think the English are a kind, loving, intelligent, generous, hardworking, honest, fair, decent, funloving, etc. etc., People in general. (I obviously haven't met every English Citizen, as yet.) My Family ties are from England. :D

Excellent point! I am sure that God would and does Bless the English People,(and in fact anyone/everyone), especially if He's simply asked to. This IS a Promise that He has made to all of us and God is incapable of going back on His Word. (this is God's ONLY limitation!) :D

[Velvet writes; "Just one question - you talk of an inalienable right to bear weapons - but say nothing of the responsibility that comes with those rights. The right to kill, but not the responsibility for that killing." ]

Because I have not as yet spoken of this, do you equal this to me somehow not accepting or having any knowledge of these things? How many prisoners in jail do you know that converse on this,(or any other), message board? I AM an God Fearing, Law Abiding Citizen. I simply Fear God before I fear the Law. As some Laws that are made by man can be against God's Laws, I will and do follow His Laws first, and then man's laws only if they are not wholly contrary to God's Laws. This is called Civil Disobedience in America. The Holy Bible covers this also.

[You write; "Actually as I understand it the 2nd Amendment actually States 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. '"
...
"This I believe ( from my studies of the American Constitution and history, which of necessity were somewhat limited, because I was also studying in depth British and European History) relates Artile 1, Section 8, Clause 15. Though I'm sure if you pointed us in the right sderection we could find where it specifically states 'inalienable right to keep and bear arms'." ]

There is no way that I profess to know all the answers, but I'm happy to help find them for you. The answers to the questions that you ask are in and throughout all of our Founding Documents, including the Federalist Papers,(which is actually extensive alone).

Here is a site that you might wish to look over;
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/reading.htm
...and then just follow the links.
IHTH, but I have more if this isn't detailed enough for you.

...
[You continue; "I don't understand why you equate rising prices with violence, nor why any school should have a mandatory police presence (I don't know of any school in the UK that has one). Nor do people generally have to keep moving just to keep their families safe. How odd that you do in a country which is so safe and serure with all those guns and weapons in public ownership." ]

Have you given much thought to this at all?
Rising prices do effect impoverished or overpopulated areas,(and not only within the USA). As the opportunity for honest employment dwindles or disappears, some people feel they need to resort to violent crime as a means to fulfill their needs. Yet this is certainly not the only reason or cause of violent crime. More often than not, improper or just plain bad parenting is quite the contributing factor to violent crime stats. Even the Economy can not be left out of the list of contributing factors to the quality of parenting. It is complicated isn't it.

But I ask you this, 'Should Government legislate exactly how parents bring up their children so that violent crime may be reduced? Ah, there's that "Control" thing again. (as it's been said; "Not Again!")

Exactly how much control do people need their government to have over them before the realization that Government Control isn't going to fix these problems, and in fact, very well may make these problems worse?

May God Bless the American AND English People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

[ 08 July 2001: Message edited by: C. M. Wolf ]

The Guvnor
8th Jul 2001, 05:16
C M Wolf, I'm absolutely flabbergasted.

In your response to my last post on this thread, you said:

[The Guvnor writes; As for terrorism in the US - your justification for bearing arms - the overwhelming of terrorist incidents have been carried out by the very 'militia' forces and ultra right-wing happy-clappy fundamentalists types that allege they are 'protecting' the average American citizen. ]

Oh really, Well I'm an American and live in America and I'm not aware of any such 'Terrorist Incidents' by these people that you have claimed. So I'm going to insist that you show me some sources or links to the information that you're talking about! By all means, you're welcome to use the entire 225 year history of the U.S. to do it too.

========

I have just one thing to say: Oklahoma City. I'm horrified that you don't seem to equate this (domestic) terrorist incident with my original statement.

Plus, of course, you can add in all the murders of civil rights campaigners in the Southern States (as portrayed in Mississipi Burning); the probable involvement of such groups in the assassination of JFK, recent firebombings of black churches; the KKK; the actions of the Minutement a few years back ... the list is endless.

Unless of course to you right wing happy clappy militia types none of this ever happened and it's all a ploy by ZOG to take away the rights and freedoms of Armalite toting, freedom loving Americans?

Wow!!

boofhead
8th Jul 2001, 05:24
The thread is getting interesting! But WWW you neglect to tell your readers that crime in the UK is rising fast (gun crimes have tripled in London in the last year for example). The UK has always had a lower rate of crime than the US; it is a culture thing. The US non-gun rate is higher than the total UK homicide rate, so it is hard to blame guns for the violence. The number of gun deaths in the US every year are around 30,000 (and falling), of which over half are suicides (which do not depend on guns) and most of the remainder is criminals killing each other or police killing criminals (11% of police homicides are later found to be of innocent civilians but hey, who's counting?
Before leaving this subject, the rate of gun homicides in the US is around 6/100,000, but the white population is responsible for only 3.8 while the black part of the population is responsible for a rate of 23 per 100,000. Along with a claim that 80% of the homicides are committed by 5% of the population. And the police know who those 5% are but are powerless to go after them. I can see a fix for the problem right there, can't you?
And is the US so bad? All the comparisons are made to other major industrialised countries; why does Taiwan, South Korea and so on get a pass? Don't their citizens count too? Closer to home, the homicide rate in Amsterdam in 1995 was 38 per 100,000, and in Stockholm it was 15.9. Helsinki had 15.3 and even Copenhagen managed a 10.5. Come on WWW, give us all the facts!
Anyway, you have been declared king of the world and you decide to get rid of all the legal guns in the US (Forget the illegal ones, you will never find them). There are some 80m housholds with firearms. Imagine if you can the effect of sending in the ATF forces, fresh from their successes at Ruby Ridge and Waco, to pry all those guns from the cold, dead hands. Come on, folks, you can't be serious. But there is another way; licence/registration. Then increase the cost of a licence to the point that no-one can afford it. Then roll in and take the guns for non-payment of the fee. 'Surely they would not do that?' you say. But yes, it is already happening.
So you, as King of the World, have managed to get all the legal guns. Now the criminals start moving in on their prey. Who is going to protect them? The police?
Ask Amadeu Diallo what the police did for him. But wait, he cannot answer; he is dead! He was standing at his front door, ready to go inside, when four armed men attacked him, firing 41 bullets and hitting him 19 times, some through the soles of his feet as he lay on the floor, dying. Who were these armed men? Why, none other than undercover policemen, out to remove guns from the population, since New York forbids private ownership of guns. And no, Amadeu did not have a gun. He had a wallet. The police concerned surely should go back to the range to practice their marksmanship, to save the city the cost of wasted ammunition if nothing else.
To answer the question about a Republic versus a Democracy, the following quote is relevant:
The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. This means that some things cannot be put to a vote. "The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities...one's right to life, liberty, property, to free speech... and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections" West Virginia Board of Education versus Barette, 319 US 624 (1943).
Like it or lump it.
Take a look at http://spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/guns.html
for more information.

WhatsaLizad?
8th Jul 2001, 06:17
Wee Weasley Welshman,

Your stats sound accurate, but you have to back them up with some information for any validity.

First, compare the age demographics of the U.S. to the UK. What are they? I don't know. I know that as a population ages, its to tiring to run around all night an commit crimes :)

Second, compare the race demographics. How we got here is a another problem, but lets compare the U.S. with the U.K. Who does the crime? In the U.S. a certain demographic group commits something like 60% of the violent crime, but they only comprise 6% of the population. I think I saw a breakdown somewhere that if this group is excluded from the U.S. figures, the Anglo-Saxon crime rate equals or is lower than Europe. Throw those in your figures, let me know how it turns out.

The school shootings, mostly white punks, are a product of a more serious problem that fewer guns will not solve. What amazed me about those Columbine punks was that they focused on their firearms rather than the bombs they made, or could have made off the internet. I would like to hear some input from some demolition experts about the possible damage they could have caused from the bombs instead of focusing on the guns. Without guns, they could have "got off" on their bombs just as easily. Are we going to raid gardening shops and deisel fuel stores too? Focus on the real problem.

You also used the 1997 U.S. crime figures. The freefall in crime rates had started by then but it continued plummeting since then. Firearm deaths have also plummetted since then. Many of the figures show less crime in New York than in London now, except where your "bobbies" are fudging the numbers.

Techman
8th Jul 2001, 06:45
If you want to manipulate the numbers, then at least manipulate equally.

Remove the top 6% percent of criminals from the European figures, and then compare.
I think that you will find, that in most countries, it is a small percentage of the population that is responsible for most of the crime.
So this "it's not us but THEM" doesnt really cut it.

And Boofhead, I trust you know that Amsterdam, Stockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen are not countries. Lets compare with some of the major cities on the U.S. and the see how the figures compare.

Wee Weasley Welshman
8th Jul 2001, 10:35
Come come gentlemen. Do you really want to get into a pi55ing competition with regards to stats showing gunshot wound or gun murder rates??

I think not as the *massive* body of evidence against the US is simply overwhelming.

It is very very weak to say that it is impossible for the US to disarm. If you guys can walk on the moon then you sure as hell ought to be able to remove all the pistols and fully automatic rifles in private hands.

Remind me - just why do people need pistols and M16's again?

WWW

max_cont
8th Jul 2001, 11:32
Well, the recent cat fight over statistics, is a great demonstration why I tend to have a jaundiced view of them in general. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would now appear to be a debate about statistics. Amazing how much you can dig up if you look though :D

Velvet, you've been reading my mind. Cut'n paste, cut'n paste. Isn't C M Wolf's style a bit too similar to OCB's, to be coincidence? :D I wonder if the last e-mail I got, was from him.

OldAg84
8th Jul 2001, 14:52
Personally, I don't keep firearms readily available in my home. Why?

- I have three young 'uns. The risk/benefit is too high-at this time.

-my cop friends tell me a dog is better security. She barks at anything and keeps an eye on our neighbors property as well. Funny how she got more popular after the break-ins.

- I would not want to shoot my own- Imagine waking up at 3:07AM in your pajamas, grabbing a loaded gun, rubbing the sleep from your eyes, going down into a dark kitchen, your eyes are adjusting, something moves...ooops, just shot a family member...

But, I expect my right to keep arms-if I want.

As for "murder rates"- let's not skew the issue. How many of the gun murders are domestic violence, kids getting there hands on guns, etc. These are not "gun driven" problems, but behavioral and societal.

I support-

mandatory firearms training

no guns allowed for those convicted of crimes against individual, especially assault or domestic violence

maybe intelligence testing for owners

stiff punishment for adults that let kids get thier hands on firearms

stiff prison sentences for violation of gun laws- oh what the hell- I'll be honest- stiff sentences period!!!

It's hard for me to accept that I shouldn't have a firearm because others can't have them responsibly. Nobody says I cant have a car because some idiot drove drunk.

So there!

Velvet
8th Jul 2001, 16:42
CM Wolf your unalienable rights are
‘certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’

I know a fair number of Americans translate these to mean the inalienable right to keep and bear arms – however, they overlook (possibly because they don’t realise there is a difference) the difference in meaning to the two prefixes ‘un’ and ‘in’ , the fact that 'inalienable isn't actually stated anywhere' and the connection of the 2nd Amendment with the Militia. However, I asked you to point me specifically to where the 2nd Amendment had been amended to read ‘inalienable right to keep and bear arms’. A link with a a gun-owners site is not justification for owning gun.

Yes, I’ve read the Founding Papers and perused the Federalist Papers (as you say extensive and mainly not relevant to my studies – which were not on the American Constitution).

Now unless you can point to where millions of people in American who own guns are part of a well-regulated militia, then you can’t site the 2nd Amendment as justification for private weapons.

As for the rest, apart from your obsession with ‘cut and paste’ – I’ve found too many similarities between you and old_cross_bound in your style, semantics, grammatical and spelling inaccuracies, plus your religious fervour to continue – so if you forgive me I’ll not bother to respond to you again.

OldAge – this is an old argument – the difference between a gun and other potentially destructive objects is that a gun is specifically designed to kill – it has no other purpose than to be an offensive weapon.

HugMonster
8th Jul 2001, 17:57
Wolf, I don't wish to get into a deate about what a "Right" is, and how that differs from an "Inalienable Right".

The simple fact of the matter is that there is a system in place by which the Constitution on the United States can be amended. Therefore the Second Amendment may be repealed. This is not a matter of "my reasoning", as you put it - it's a imple matter of fact. You understand the concept of a "fact"? And the Bible will not help much on whether or not people should carry firearms.

As for the "timing" of your posts - you make yourself a hypocrite if you accuse others of ignoring arguments which you think they may find difficult to dispute, and then do the same yourself. Find a little (a) honesty, (b) consistency or (c) integrity.

Finally, like so many of the gun-squadders, you are very hot on "rights", yet ignore the responsibilities that go with them. You want your "freedom" yet are not prepared to pay the cost of freedom. That makes you about as irresponsible as it is possible to be, because it makes you careless of your responsibilites to everyone around you. You want what's due to YOU, and damn everyone else.

TowerDog
8th Jul 2001, 21:41
C.M.Wolf:

I didn't know it was my job to answer your questions.

If still don't understand where I stand on the gun issue, go back and re read some of the posts.

As for the "Thanks For The Heads up" message, I was responding to another gun lover but did not properly indicate that.

"How many guns do I see in the Streets"
I did not indicate that the actual pavement is littered with guns:

What I meant was...Forget it. If you don't understand, I can't explain.

(It would be a good idea to require IQ testing for gun owners. I know at least one that would lose his entire collection.. :D)

OldAg84
8th Jul 2001, 23:09
Velvet

My analogy may be a slight stretch but owning a firearm is a right (under U.S. law)whereas having a driver's license is considered a "privilege" (under individual U.S. state laws).

Also, I was always taught a gun is a tool- to hunt with and potentially defend oneself with....no adult ever said to me, "by the way if you're gonna commit a crime-use this baby..."

I'll beat a dead horse...actually a few dead horses...

I shouldn't have a firearm because the kill people- well since I'm not a criminal why shouldn't I have one if the criminals do?
Yes, the criminal shouldn't either, but they do, and that's a sad fact. It is about the right to defend one's home.

There are a lot of quiet gun owners in the US. I gaurantee you, in the (unlikely) case of civil insurection, riots, or even conventional war (very unlikely)towns, neighborhoods, and homes would be well defended.

Look at all the other examples of unarmed populations exterminated or persecuted-previously addressed in the thread.

boofhead
8th Jul 2001, 23:24
Come on, 84.. this is Jet Blast! You're not supposed to make intelligent comments here!

Life in the US is not as dangerous as it would be assumed to be if your only knowledge was these pages. In fact normal people live just as safely in the US as they do anywhere in Europe. Only a small number of 'innocents' are affected by gun violence, the vast majority are involved in the gangs, criminal elements etc that form the bulk of the shootings (non-suicide). My family (I am not a US citizen, although they are)lives in a town, that is typical, where cars can be left with keys in the ignition, doors left unlocked in houses at night, purses that are lost will be turned in to the police untouched, etc. This is in California yet, where gun violence is supposed to be amongst the highest in the nation. Personally I have experienced no crime in the US.
I always feel comfortable there, since I avoid the places where the 6% hang out.
I admit that it is more comforting to be in the UK or Aus, where the sight of a gun, even as part of the uniform of a policeman or customs officer, is extremely rare. But am I safer?

Of course there are innocents killed, such as workers at fast food places who are shot in order that the criminals might protect their identity, but this type of thing happens everywhere. A sad reflection of our times.
Stats are helpful but not comlete unless they are compiled in the same way. The city crime figures I quoted before did have US cities that I did not repeat. However Amsterdam was higher, that year, than the highest US city, Chicago, by quite a margin. I am in Chicago right now, and do not expect to be shot, or even see a gun that is not on the hip of a policeman.

Because there are so many guns out there, it would be impossible to confiscate them. Gun Control should be called prohibition and it has never worked. As with the drug war (prohibition) the first people to support continuation of the war are the criminals themselves, since they benefit so much from it. Getting rid of honest, legal guns would work only to their benefit.

Whenever the restrictions on private ownership and use of firearms have been relaxed, crime (particularly firearms crime) has fallen. The Old West, when practically everyone had a gun and was prepared to use it, was actually a safer place than the big cities in the US are now, despite (or because of) gun control.

People who do not understand, or fear guns (rather than the person holding the gun, perhaps?) react viscerally to the sight of one. Since guns prevent, more than they are used to commit crimes, this reaction is not reasonable for an intelligent person. It proves that the campaign against guns (and drugs, and sex, and alcohol) is very successful. If you like being told what to think, this is not a problem to you. If you want the facts, and prefer to make your own judgements, more power to you.

An aside to illustrate my point; in the US it is illegal for a minor (under 21) to comsume alcohol, even in his own home in private. The reason was to reduce drunken driving by teens, and in it's way it has worked. It is accepted as normal by most Americans, even minors. But alcohol is a legal product, so how can the freedom to consume a legal substance be lost so easily? in Aus/UK the age for drinking is (as it was in the US not so long ago) 18, and so far as I know was not restricted at any age in the home. Yet those countries have less problems with drunken driving, especially with teens, than the US does now, even with its laws. The problem was drunken driving, and could have been attacked as such. Instead the US chose to go after drinking (in the process eroding State's Rights, another constitutional question that has not been addressed properly) by minors. In the same way, gun violence is a problem of violence. It would be better to try to stop that rather than singling out guns, which are a tool, not a cause.

Sermon over.

The Guvnor
9th Jul 2001, 00:08
I was sent the following today by a right wing conspiracy theorist type...

&gt;
&gt; G U N C O N T R O L!
&gt; The Key to G E N O C I D E!
&gt; "The only no-compromise Gun Lobby for Texas and the Nation!"
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; PERPETRATOR GOVERNMENT DATE TARGET # MURDERED (ESTIMATED) DATE OF GUN
&gt;CONTROL LAW SOURCE DOCUMENT
&gt; Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians 1-1.5 million 1886
&gt; 1911 Art. 166, Penal Code
&gt; Art. 166 Penal Code
&gt; Soviet Union 1929-1953 Anti-Communists
&gt; Anti-Stalinists 20 million 1929 Art. 182 Penal Code
&gt; Nazi Germany
&gt; & Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis 13 million 1928
&gt; 1938 Law on Firearms
&gt; & Ammunition, April 12
&gt; Weapons Law, March 18
&gt; China 1949-1952
&gt; 1957-1960
&gt; 1966-1976 Anti-Communists
&gt; Rural Populations
&gt; Pro-Reform Group 20 million 1935
&gt; 1957 Arts. 186-7, Penal Code
&gt; Art. 9, Security Law, Oct. 22
&gt; Guatemala 1960-1981 Maya Indians 100,000 1871
&gt; 1964 Decree 36, Nov 25
&gt; Decree 283, Oct 27
&gt; Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
&gt; Political Rivals 300,000 1955
&gt; 1970 Firearms Ordinance
&gt; Firearms Act
&gt; Cambodia 1975-1979 Educated Persons 1 million 1956 Arts. 322-8, Penal
&gt;Code
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;----------------------------------------------------------------------------
&gt;----
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;Copyright (c) 1995 David B. Kopel.
&gt;
&gt;Originally published in the New York Law School Journal of International and
&gt;Comparative Law, 1995, Vol. 15, pages 355-398.
&gt;
&gt;LETHAL LAWS
&gt;Reviewed by David B. Kopel
&gt;
&gt; "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first."
&gt; The Talmud. [1]
&gt;This book ought to be a non-controversial item that will quickly find its
&gt;way onto the shelves of all libraries with an interest in international law.
&gt;The authors' method is quite standard: a compilation from seven nations of
&gt;statutes on a particular subject. The translation of the statutes into
&gt;English is meticulous, and each of the statutes is accompanied by commentary
&gt;explaining its significance. [2]
&gt;In addition, as the legal academy works to improve itself at hearing voices
&gt;which have too long been ignored, this book makes a profound effort to bring
&gt;to our attention the lives of people, such as persecuted ethnic minorities,
&gt;who have been marginalized by scholarly research.
&gt;
&gt;But in fact, this book will likely be bought by few law school libraries. It
&gt;is unlikely to be reviewed in the usual international law journals, because
&gt;in a number of ways, the book is so politically incorrect.
&gt;
&gt;What is "wrong" with this book? First, its lead author is an economist, not
&gt;a law professor or even an attorney. Second, the topic of the book is gun
&gt;control statutes in nations which have perpetrated genocide in the twentieth
&gt;century. Third, the book's insistent thesis is that gun control paves the
&gt;way for genocide.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;I. The Nations
&gt;The core of the book--the translations of the various foreign laws--is
&gt;excellent, and should serve as a model for similar books on other subjects.
&gt;On the even-numbered pages are photocopies of the foreign laws. On the
&gt;odd-numbered, facing pages, are English translations of the laws. The
&gt;foreign statutes are photocopied from foreign statute books. Copies of the
&gt;cover and publication information pages from the foreign statute books are
&gt;provided as well. This approach encourages the most accurate translations,
&gt;since any person who can read the language of the foreign statute can
&gt;instantly verify the accuracy of the translation. Meticulous citations make
&gt;the book all the more credible and valuable as a reference work.
&gt;While the authors do an excellent job in compiling the various foreign
&gt;statutes (many of which, such as Ottoman Empire statutes from 1860, are
&gt;quite obscure), the authors run into a serious difficulty as they attempt to
&gt;analyze the various gun laws in their historical context in each nation. As
&gt;the authors acknowledge, only the Nazi genocide has been carefully
&gt;investigated. [3] The victims of most of the other genocides were much less
&gt;likely than European Jews to be able to write Western languages (or to be
&gt;able to write at all). Accordingly, they were less able to leave any kind of
&gt;record for history. Likewise, most genocidal regimes of the twentieth
&gt;century were considerably less devoted than the Nazis were in recording
&gt;their own activities.
&gt;
&gt;Let us now turn to the individual nations whose gun control laws and
&gt;genocide records form the core of Lethal Laws.
&gt;
&gt;A. Armenia
&gt;After the government of the Ottoman Empire quickly crushed an Armenian
&gt;revolt in 1893, tens of thousands of Armenians were murdered by mobs armed
&gt;and encouraged by the government. As anti-Armenian mobs were being armed,
&gt;the government attempted to convince Armenians to surrender their guns. [4]
&gt;A 1903 law banned the manufacture or import of gunpowder without government
&gt;permission. [5] In 1910, manufacturing or importing weapons without
&gt;government permission, as well as carrying weapons or ammunition without
&gt;permission was forbidden. [6]
&gt;During World War I, in February 1915, local officials in each Armenian
&gt;district were ordered to surrender quotas of firearms. When officials
&gt;surrendered the required number, they were executed for conspiracy against
&gt;the government. When officials could not surrender enough weapons from their
&gt;community, the officials were executed for stockpiling weapons. Armenian
&gt;homes were also searched, and firearms confiscated. Many of these mountain
&gt;dwellers had kept arms despite prior government efforts to disarm them. [7]
&gt;
&gt;The genocide against Armenians began with the April 24, 1915 announcement
&gt;that Armenians would be deported to the interior. The announcement came
&gt;while the Ottoman government was desperately afraid of an Allied attack that
&gt;would turn Turkey's war against Russia into a two-front war. In fact,
&gt;British troops landed at Gallipoli in western Turkey the next day. Although
&gt;the Anglo-Russian offensives failed miserably, the Armenian genocide
&gt;continued for the next two years. [8] Some of the genocide was accomplished
&gt;by shooting or cutting down Armenian men. The bulk of the 1 to 1.5 million
&gt;Armenian deaths, however, occurred during the forced marches to the
&gt;interior. Although the marches were ostensibly for the purpose of protecting
&gt;the Armenians through relocation, the actual purpose was to make the marches
&gt;so difficult (for example, by not providing any food) that survival was
&gt;impossible. [9]
&gt;
&gt;The Armenian genocide differs from the six other genocides detailed in
&gt;Lethal Laws in one important respect. Although many Armenians apparently
&gt;complied with the gun control laws and the deportation orders, some did not.
&gt;For example, in southern Syria (then part of the Ottoman Empire), "the
&gt;Armenians refused to submit to the deportation order . . . . Retreating into
&gt;the hills, they took up a strategic position and organized an impregnable
&gt;defense. The Turks attacked and were repulsed with huge losses. They
&gt;proceeded to lay siege." [10] Eventually 4,000 survivors of the siege were
&gt;rescued by the British and French. [11] These Armenians who grabbed their
&gt;guns and headed for the hills are the converse to the vast numbers of
&gt;Armenian and other genocide victims in Lethal Laws who submitted quietly;

Velvet
9th Jul 2001, 00:25
Using that analogy OldAge, every country should have an atomic bomb if they wish - so can you ask the US Government to back off over countries they disapprove of. Not all countries want to use the bomb, they just want it because the USA has one (well a few hundred actually).

A gun is not a tool, a screwdriver is a tool (it can kill, but that's not its primary purpose) - a gun is an offensive weapon - you hunt with it - so that you can kill an animal. You don't go out with a gun just to use it as a walking stick.

Cars may kill, but they are not designed purely for that purpose. A baseball bat can kill, heck a plastic bag could kill. But they are not designed specifically to do this. That's the difference.

The problem is that the Americans have grown up with the belief that they are not only entitled, but have every right to own a gun. The British don't have this tradition (only in the country with shotguns). I don't think just because a criminal has a gun, then so should I. I don't particularly want to be like a criminal. I know this may seem strange, but no I don't want a gun to defend my home. And yes, I have trained and used guns and I have seen what they can do.

Do you really believe that if civil insurrection happened you and your fellow citizens would really stand much chance against armed, trained troops (foreign or home-grown).

I have thought this out very carefully, just because I disagree with you boof, doesn't mean I am just following the crowd. I don't know if you are safer generally in the US or in Australia or UK. I do know that if everyone in the district around me had guns, I'd be a lot more fearful of living here than I do now. I give you the same answer - guns are not tools - they do not have a single purpose other than to kill.

Whilst Hollywood and the Americans remain in love with the 'Wild West' image of their past - guns will remain and they'll continue to justify their ownership.

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 02:30
Velvet

You're correct, I don't "believe" I should own a gun- it's my right!

But of course, based upon the spelling in my last post- I might be shot with it! ;)

As far as different cultures and countries are concerned, I have in the few times I've been abroad 2X to the UK and 1X to Sweden (haven't included Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean), I've respected their laws and customs(and been received well and hospitably).

I'll make no apologies for gun ownership in the U.S. The same "lack of parity" analogy you've accused me of RE: atomic weapons in the hands of any country does not fit with individuals.

America was built on individual freedoms-but as I was taught in grammer school, free speech does not mean I can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Similarly, if I own a firearm, legally, then I must use it, legally... but it's still-my right (as an American).

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 02:39
Velvet,

In answer to your question. In the event of an armed insurrection "would we have a chance, etc. against trained well armed troops.

I read a book about James Goodson, an American fighter ace who fought from Great Britian for the Allies. I believe he may have been in an Eagle Squadron, but I'm not sure. Anyway, he was offered a chance to review a Home Guard unit drill. After the drill, the commanding officer said discreetly, "They were pathetic weren't they?" After gentle agreement by James Goodson, the commander replied,(my comment here, to the effect," If the Jerries come, these men will die fighting." (My apologies to the author).

Velvet, when I read that it touched me to the core. Why, because I know it's true (or if it's just a story-it would be).

Same here in my town- but I'd rather be armed if it happens.

old_cross_bound
9th Jul 2001, 03:19
CM Wolf ,

I agree with you on this 100%

The difference in the US system and the British system as I understand it is that in Britian you have no rights unless granted to you by the government where as in the US there are no objection to your God given rights as a human being unless some specific law states otherwise.

An example is the American drivers license. We have no right to drive without a license. All law in Britian, on the other hand is based on this concept. Our ancestors, who fled from the religious persecution of Europe, knew what they were doing.

Americans have a tremendous amount of liberty and freedom compared to the British system when it comes to the bottom line.

Presently, I'm looking for a gun that will shoot down one of the iridium satelites'. They don't look good in the sky next to the real stars and planets. This Global tracking system is a real infringement on my privacy and I need a Gun that can reach into outer space. If anyone invents one of these for home use, they'll be the next Bill Gates. LOL!

ocb

[ 08 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

Techman
9th Jul 2001, 03:22
It seems to me that most americans deliberately misunderstand the 2nd amendment.

When it was written the situation was clearly different from today. It is quite clear that is was written as a deterrent to any would be invader.

Anyway who's rights are more important, the individual or the society.

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 03:46
Ya, know- I hate to sound like an ugly American, but I'll give a try...

Typically, the individual's rights are more important than society's...as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Great concept, it might even explain our plethora of lawyers.. Again, I make no apologies- I married one and took her out of the industry.

Velvet- One final comment- "plastic bags might kill" true, but I wouldn't take a Hefty Bag deer hunting.. I would use a proper "tool"...(although it would give new meaning to "I bagged my limit"). Conversly, I would use a proper tool to put a hole in a wall, i.e. a drill, but I have seen it done with a handgun. The drill is much neater and puts the hole closer to where you need it.

TowerDog
9th Jul 2001, 06:43
Okay, if I understand this right: The right of an individual citizen to "bear arms" come way in front of another citizen's right to live?

The gun lovers would rather have their guns than to even consider that a human life,
(Or 30,000 such lifes) could be blown away due to too many guns floating around?

Uh, what don't ya guys understand here?
Is it more important to keep producing and spreading them guns around, to tickle your rights than to limit them so more people can live?

I guess none of the above makes any sense:

If so, I rest my case: Let the killings continue and "Don't Stop The Carnival".

No common sense left in the US, only "rights and guns".

Ranger
9th Jul 2001, 07:38
FloridaGW wrote "All of you Anti-Gun idiots forget that the only reason you have the freedom and rights you have today is due to guns that were used to fight and win the wars for our independence and freedom. Ironic how none of you ever give credit to firearms for anything. I'd like to have seen us win our independence with a knife or bow and arrow. It wouldn't have happened!"


I just finished reading a book call "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" which documents the genocide committed against the many tribes of Indians. The ones you didn't kill you banished to areas no-one else wanted or simply stole their lands from under them.

Perhaps you should ask the surviving American Indians how they feel about their rights and what they think about guns.

Freedom and Rights to gun-loving Americans only seems to matter when it's your own. You could not give a twopence about anyone elses rights or freedom.

I'm not unhappy when gun-owning Americans shoot other gun-owning Americans, but it's such a tragedy when so many innocent men, women and children have died and will continue to die because the country is awash with weapons.

old_cross_bound
9th Jul 2001, 08:00
TowerDog ,

Now that is some silly thinking. Your premise is unrealistic. Why don't we just ask all the governments around the world to dump all their weapons and we can stop "all" the killing.

The governments are the people when you think about it.

ocb

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

Constable Clipcock
9th Jul 2001, 08:05
To answer your question, Velvet...

"Do you really believe that if civil insurrection happened you and your fellow citizens would really stand much chance against armed, trained troops (foreign or home-grown)"

... I doubt the French Resistance shared your opinion.

JudyTTexas
9th Jul 2001, 08:08
There have been David's that have fought Goliaths and won. :)

I own a gun and have since I was 16 (and I was NOT from Texas). Do I enjoy shooting Skeet? yeppers... Use to hunt, but would rather shoot clay pidgeons. I do not own a gun because I live in "fear". I own one because it is legal for me to do so.

First murder the Bible talks about was Cain killing Able. Wasn't with a gun, but had it in his "heart" to do so.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :D

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: JudyTTexas ]

old_cross_bound
9th Jul 2001, 08:12
Ranger,

An armed society is a polite society. Crooks will always have them. I just like a fair playing field and the governments problems with guns are the ones they created out of neglect and indifference. It's their mess to clean up not the individuals who is defenseless without them.
I don't call them guns or assault guns. I call them family protection devices.


ocb

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 08:13
Wow!!

I have been pulled into an internet pi$$ing contest. With TowerDog no less (said with only respect due to your PPrune post #).

I have seen first hand-as an individual and as a firefighter/emergency medical technician (EMT) the effects of firearms. I
maintain, it is MY CHOICE/RIGHT to own a firearm.

Yes, keep them away from children!
Keep them away from the mentally ill!
Keep them away fron criminals!!!

But don't take away my right to own a firearm!

I'm not a gun nut or fanatic.

I'm an American citizen.

Responsible gun owners don't let their guns "float around". They secure them.

P.S. I'm not paranoid either, am I???

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: OldAg84 ]

HugMonster
9th Jul 2001, 09:00
I'm starting to get tired of all the bull***t talked on here by the pro-gun nuts.

Clipcock, the French Resistance were armed and aided by the Allies - they were not trying to make a stand with Saturday night specials and shotguns. Their aim, further, was not to fight direct. Most of their function was disruption combined with gathering and passing on intelligence, and returning allied soldiers across the Channel.

JudyT, yes, there have been "David and Goliath" wars. One was Vietnam. But they are few and far between.

An armed society is a polite society? What a load of rubbish - but no more than we've come to expect of a jerk like OCB. People are being killed in your schools, on your streets, in the supermarkets, caught in crossfire, in drive-by shootings, in "accidents", in cases of "mistaken identity" by the police, in murders, in drug turf-wars... Check out the numer of deaths in your country from firearms - WWW provided the numbers. You are only going to reduce the numers of firearms deaths in the USA by reducing the number of firearms. US society may be polite (although that's debatable), but most people of my acquaintance would prefer a safe society.

Ag84 - I note that you are in favour of gun control - thanks for conceding that. Do I take it then, that the 2nd Amendment should rule out children, the mentally unfit, etc.? What other Constitution Articles do not, contrary to appearances, apply to all? And how do you you propose to keep firearms away from these groups (particularly the criminal) when they can simply break into almost any house and steal them?

I haven't seen any of the gun control lobby here advocating people not being permitted to own firearms where there is reason for them to do so. Those reasons may be:-

Sporting (hunting rifles / skeet shotguns etc.)
Competitive Sport (target pistols/rifles)
Agricultural Pest Control (shotguns for rabbit etc.)
etc. etc.

What people are advocating is that you should need to show a well-founded reason for owning a firearm. Further, if you do not take sufficient care and it is lost, stolen or misused, the owner should be held responsible for the consequences. In the days that it was still legal for firearms to be owned in the UK, they had to be kept either at a recognised Gun Club, or, if at home, in a locked steel gun case that was securely fixed to the fabric of the building. It was not legal (except in a very few cases) to carry. Anyone found carrying, or using a firearm in pursuit of any crime was suject to some very harsh penalties. There is not a lot of trouble here with illegal imports, and perhaps the US Customs could look at what they do in that respect, so very few criminals had guns. The occasional Amnesty brought in further hauls. The end result? British society is, by and large, a polite AND SAFE society.

Winston Smith
9th Jul 2001, 09:13
WWW:

[QUOTE -- I choose the freedom not to be murdered above all else. -- END OF QUOTE]

It's the old semantic schism again: While us politically incorrect folks consider freedom "being free TO do" something, you anti-self-defense people understand it to mean "being free FROM" something - which you expect the government to take care of.

-

Ranger:

[QUOTE -- I'm not unhappy when gun-owning Americans shoot other gun-owning Americans, but it's such a tragedy when so many innocent men, women and children have died and will continue to die because the country is awash with weapons. -- END OF QUOTE]

So you don't mind decent citizens being killed - just because their opinion on self-defense differs from yours? In that case I'm sure you won't mind me saying that I won't be "unhappy" if some criminal kills you, either. :mad:

-

ocb:

[QUOTE -- Presently, I'm looking for a gun that will shoot down one of the iridium satelites'. They don't look good in the sky next to the real stars and planets. This Global tracking system is a real infringement on my privacy and I need a Gun that can reach into outer space. If anyone invents one of these for home use, they'll be the next Bill Gates. LOL! -- END OF QUOTE]

I'd rather go for the television satellites - just imagine them "liberals" turning on their sets one day and: ... no one there telling them what they are supposed to think! :D

HugMonster
9th Jul 2001, 09:46
Winston, I note that you're back to being a reactionary, intolerant, fascist again - that's a shame.

I'm grateful that, at least, you acknowledge that (a) your opinions are incorrect, and (b) that you prefer freedom to murder to freedom from fear of murder. Once again, you illustrate the lack of responsibility of the right-wing, in demanding "rights" and "freedoms" but refusing to accept the duties and responsibilities that go with those rights and freedoms, and careless of what it took to earn them.

Ranger said he DID mind innocent citizens being killed. Anybody who goes armed goes with the capacity and the preparedness to kill other human beings. They therefore have it in their mind to kill - the level of provocation that would prompt them to kill differs from one to the next. It does, however, rather negate their innocence of mind. I think a mind that construes Ranger's post as wishing people dead, and in turn wishing the poster dead must be a rather ugly place to live.

Finally, your idea that anyone whose opinions differ from yours must have een told what to think by others is rude, ignorant, and just plain stupid. Just who, in your twisted logic, is it on television telling liberals what to think? Perhaps other liberals? And where do they receive their opinions? Or is it some great conspiracy?

Going by your example, the difference is that liberals do, at least, think. There is no evidence from your post of any thinking ability whatsoever.

boofhead
9th Jul 2001, 10:11
I said it on one of my previous posts and I say it again: There are those who support gun control and those who don't. All we write here will not change anyone's mind. I don't believe that those who already have an opinion even read the info presented. Witness the refusal to understand that the 2nd Amendment, together with the rules governing militias, was written by the US Congress over two hundred years ago and has never been amended, nor has it been cancelled. It still applies and it is conceivable (though not likely) that a male citizen could be prosecuted if he was found NOT to have a suitable (military style) firearm ready to use. He could be charged with Treason and taken out and shot! What part of "it's the law" don't people understand?

The only male citizens aged 17-45 who are exempt are those who are in the National Guard or Naval Militia, and, since their allegience is to the Federal Government rather than to the USA (Those entities are NOT the same thing) the military is also defacto exempt.

And, Velvet (sigh) guns are tools, literally and figuratively. They are used for a purpose, as is a hammer or telephone. One would be hard pressed to discharge a bullet using just one's teeth! And the facts clearly show that guns are used many times more often to defend against criminals (saving lives) than they are used to commit crimes. If guns were taken from law abiding citizens the death toll would be impossible to comprehend (see the many references in these pages). Most guns in private hands are not even fired, or leave that person's house. They are kept for defence only and just a small percentage of them are ever used. The picture the gun control advocates would have you believe is that everyone who owns a gun carries it with him wherever he goes, and is likely to snap at a moment's notice and shoot down everyone in sight. It is so completely not true it would be funny if not for the fact that so many mindless people believe it.

The figure of 30,000 lives lost, as I have pointed out (together with other posters) is not a total of innocents who were gunned down going about their normal business,as many of you continue to present them, and in compliance with the liberal press that tells you this garbage in the first place. Half of the victims do it to themselves, and the suicide rate is lower in the US than it is in many other countries, so one would suppose that the many thousands of Japanese, Englishmen etc would appreciate the chance to do it with less pain than they are forced to. Of the other half, there are some 1,200 accidental deaths but the vast majority is drug/gang related and they are people who shoot each other or are shot by the authorities. They are, at the least, criminals (although I do not think they deserve to die for it). Of course that leaves several thousand people who are true victims and that should stop, but the problem is violence. If we take away the guns, the normal result is more violence, not less. And even if the crims had their guns taken away as well, are you any less dead if you are knifed? (by the way, a person is more likely to recover from a gunshot that is not immediately fatal than he is from a knife wound of similar severity).

I suggest that those who are not sure, to read the whole subject again and then post something to actually refute the arguments presented. From what I can see here, the gun control advocates (who are well-meaning and concerned people) have no facts to support their arguments or ignore evidence that does not agree with their opinions. They use statistics in a limited way and only those that they think support their views. The ones who are anti gun control cannot see how anyone can ignore the evidence, and become less coherent as a result. This leads to poor communication. Dare I say it? Like a marriage! But like a marriage, both parties have to learn to live together and maybe there is a compromise both can live with. Maybe.

Let me give you a simple remedy: Stop the stupid war on drugs. Fix the economy by passing a real tax cut. Go after the violence.

HugMonster
9th Jul 2001, 10:33
Boofhead, I suggest you stop living up to your name, and practice what you are preaching to the rest of us.

You have come up with a whole load of assertions, without stating a single authority for any of them.

We are perfectly well aware that the 2nd Amendment was written a long time ago, and not changed since. The world has changed a great deal since. Apart from the National Guard, who issue weapons to their members, so there is no need for them to go out and buy one (or two or three or a few more...), there is no State Militia in the US.

It is NOT the law that adult males in the US should own a weapon. You're talking through your nether regions.

And the tyranny of the state argument is such ballsaches that it is laughable. You're living in a (supposedly civilised) democracy there. If the government does something you don't like, you remove them. You think the armed forces will support a corrupt government? In case you didn't know the oath they take is to protect the nation and its Constitution, not its government.

Yes, boofhead, almost everyone is aware that a country is not the same as its government.

"The facts clearly show..." do they? Let's see your "facts" so we can all decide.

Where on earth do you get your figures - half the shootings in the US are suicides? Let's see your figures for that - and the authority that produced them.

And you think the war on drugs is stupid? You want drugs to be freely available, AND firearms?

Until you can come up with something intelligent, reasoned, quoting supporting figures, you are just making a mockery of yourself. I suggest you either stop, or produce your evidence, as WWW has done.

Ranger
9th Jul 2001, 11:55
I did not see Winston Smith respond at all to my reference to the genocide committed on the native Indian populations of America. Maybe they have'nt told you about it.

I recall they did much the same to white folks who called themselves Mormons, and they believed in the same god. Maybe it's because they took the land from peaceful tribes in such a violent and brutal manner that they are worried (even to this day) that someone will come along and do the same to them.

Gog
9th Jul 2001, 12:53
Hugmonster,
FYI those statistics from WWW are the same ones,using the same sources ,that you "took with a pinch of salt" when comparing gun ownership verses homicide in the US, Switzerland, NZ and less well armed populations earlier.Except that the stats on the US are a bit more recent than WWWs but they are only marginaly different.

As I said earlier, Stats to play with.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The Guvnor
9th Jul 2001, 15:16
Strange, but so far on this thread no one has taken into consideration this little thought:

with rights come responsibilities

Seems to me that there's far too much in the way of demanding 'rights' here in the States; but all too few people prepared to honour (or should that be 'honor') their corresponding responsibilities to their community. On that basis alone, why should they be entitled to their 'rights'?

Someone (I forget who) said that the US citizens have far more 'freedoms' than we do in Europe. Well, talking as a Brit, I'd just like to say that I really enjoy my automatic right to a British passport (US citizens, strangely, don't have a 'right' to a passport - they only get them on the suffereance of their government and they can be withdrawn by them at any time); and I also enjoy my right to be taxed by the UK only when I'm actually tax-resident there. Unlike Uncle Sam's poor folks, who have to pay tax wherever in the world they are (although usually offset against double taxation agreements).

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 16:16
Was I being exclusionary?

Keep children away from guns-

Keep blind pilots out of the cockpit-

Some things are just common sense.

I do object to the thought that other people know what's better for me and mine. You don't want a firearm-don't have one.

If you have one- have it responsibly and within the confines of the law.

Also, there are a few state militias in the US, North Carolina has one. They are not armed-but serve in an adjunct capacity to the police when required.

Finally, would I wan't to take on a T-82 tank and 20 Spetsnatz soldiers from my back porch with a handgun- not really. But I'd still rather have one.

Velvet
9th Jul 2001, 17:39
Oh what a bucket of worms this particular issue has delivered. Just so that everyone (especially the Americans understand) Yes, I've read every single post, yes I understand what is written, yes, I do realise that the 2nd Amendment was written in the 1791. Yes, I do realise that Americans are very attached to their rights to bear arms. Yes, I understand that you want to keep that right, even if you don't invoke it. Yes, I also understand that you feel this is a fundamental aspect of American Life.

Yes, I understand that the French Resistance did indeed carry out subversive and sometimes successful actions against an invading force. What didn't happen is that they won their country back with no more than the weapons they had in their houses. They were liberated by outside forces and their own with superior numbers and armament.

Yes, I've read and understand every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph and post - I just don't agree with everything that's been written. I find it rather patronising when it is implied I'm some kind of intellectual pigmy who needs to have every point explained, just because I disagree.

As for the 2nd Amendment, if militia means only males between certain ages - does that mean that all women and children are not legally allowed to hold weapons. Nor that they have a right to – sort of cuts Judy out.

Boof (sigh) guns kill - doesn't matter what else use them for, nor what you call them euphemistically. Additionally, we in England do not have guns, as a rule, in private hands – I haven’t seen any evidence of incomprehensible slaughter. It seems rather a circular argument – you keep a gun because you want to defend yourself against all those people who keep guns, because they want to defend themselves against all those people who keep guns, because they…………… However, you state that they are almost never fired because they aren’t needed – so doesn’t that rather prove the argument that they are not really needed, except due to fear not reality.

I don’t believe everyone carries a gun in America, nor am I persuaded that they are a necessary adjunct for everyday life in American homes. Nor, is it a persuasive argument that handing out guns to everyone in England or Japan who would like to commit suicide, just so they could end their lives less painfully.

I’m completely sure actually, that guns in amateur hands are dangerous, that the majority of homes in America would be a whole lot safer if they didn’t have guns.

Strange how the picture the pro-gun lobby present and would have you believe is of a gun-loving, gun-owning, peaceful, calm, crime-free society. We (concerned and well-meaning) people who are of the opinion that weapons should be controlled responsibly under proper supervision and licence (oh and anyone with a gun licence should be properly trained to use and handle that weapon), are misled and baffled by the lack of evidence and manipulated statistics. We would agree with the pro-gun lobby if only we were clever enough to understand the arguments.


OldAge - I just realised I didn't respond to your previous posting about the 'Home Guard' during WW2 - yes, that was an accurate representation. You see most of our fighting men were already 'fighting', only the old men, women and children were left. If you watch 'Dad's Army' a British comedy programme you'll find that a fairly true account of the home front. And yes, it is sad and pathetic that they (often armed only with wooden replica guns, or even broomhandles) were prepared to die fighting for their homes against superior and well-armed invaders, but rather heroic too don't you think.

However, even if they had been well-armed with weaponry - I'm fairly certain they would still have died fighting. Untrained ordinary citizens, even if they have weapons, stand little chance against heavily armed soldiers. Even less again aerial bombardment and tanks etc.

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: Velvet ]

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 19:21
Velvet, TowerDog, Hugmonster, et.al.

I'll agree to disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is wrong ;)

Seriously, the discussion is good. I'll agree there are problems with guns in America, but the guns and responsible gun owners are not the cause of them.

Velvet; do you want to start a new thread?

Suggestions

Crime and punishment- what to do with criminals caught with guns.

Dual income families and does daycare raise good kids?

What traits/skills make a responsible gunowner?

Bullying in schools and neighborhoods. Why does it happen and what can we do.

RE: This post- it is a simple question without a simple answer.

Constable Clipcock
9th Jul 2001, 19:39
So, Velvet... what you're really saying is that you have the "bend over and take it" mindset. Since you so clearly lack the spine to take a stand, why do you even bother preaching to us Americans? Especially when it isn't even your country?

Maybe you'd care to explain the success of the Maccabees then?

The Guvnor
9th Jul 2001, 20:50
Velvet, I don't think that the average French Resistance fighter really had a couple of Sten guns and a box of HE lying around his/her house, do you? They were supplied by the British!!

Winston Smith
9th Jul 2001, 21:23
HugMonster:

[QUOTE: Winston, I note that you're back to being a reactionary, intolerant, fascist again - that's a shame.]

You forgot the "narrow-minded, hate-crazed bigot"! I will not take it to heart, though, since these funny words always give me a good laugh. Labelling someone "intolerant" is usually pointless since it works both ways; you do not seem to "tolerate" my opinions very much, either. The term "fascist" is being abused even more today by "liberals" - I do not see any connection between my post and the philosophy behind Mussolini's regime. On the contrary, you seem to be much more in favour of governmental control than I am!

I must ask you not to misread my posts: I did not expressly "wish" Ranger dead. What I did was that I simply reflected his outrageous statements back to himself. A lot of posters on this thread apparently ARE "American gun-owners", and claiming that he is "not unhappy" when one of them is shot is more than just cynical. I don't see any other way to read his statement, and I replied in kind.

-

Ranger:

No, of course I did not "respond at all" to your statements concerning the Indians because it is a totally different topic, and you obviously didn't even address me.

Send Clowns
9th Jul 2001, 21:38
Velvet made a good point to the debate that is rarely made. The point that civilians, even keen shooters, are pathetically ill-equipped to fight against trained troops. This renders the 2nd Amendment obsolete.

The best recent demonstration was an attack on a battle-hardened militia force by real, trained soldiers is the recent rescue of British troops (only captured due to restrictive rules of engagement) in Sierra Leone by 1st Battalion the Parachute regiment. The Paras, outnumbered and outgunned and at the disadvantage of having to attack not only succeeded in their new role of hostage rescue but lost only one man (actually an SAS trooper) for enemy losses of at least 24 dead.

Still think the idea of a militia is worth the regular slaughter of Americans, killed deliberately or in accidents?

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 22:28
Send Clowns

I'm a fairly good shot.

I'd take my chances.

Lord knows I hope never to have to.

Civil unrest happens, natural disasters happen,...

By the way who say's I'm untrained?

Wee Weasley Welshman
9th Jul 2001, 23:24
I say again, I asay again - 46 times more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK.

Not one person has made a convincing arguement for why this is acceptable.

A few have attacked the stats - well OK then lets say the stats are out by a whole FACTOR of ten (though they're not).

Your policy of open access to firearms still results in 4 times the number of dead people than need be. Justify.

Stop pontificating about govermental philosophy and try grappling with real world facts please.

WWW

ps anybody referring to any event post mid 60's be it civil war, consitution or WW2 please desist.

pps first time anybody has called me PC!

ppps I bet I'm a better shot than half you wide arsed American gun worshipers.

pppps can anybody please lend me flak jacket ;) :)

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 23:31
It's ironic that most of those who want to ban firearms- don't live in the U.S.

WWW-it's still my right if I want!!!
That's the only justification I need.

It's not my handguns which are killing people.

If it's a fact-then it's not pontificating.

The Guvnor
9th Jul 2001, 23:49
Hey, OldAg84 - as I write this, I'm in Greenville, SC. Not too far from you. Surprisingly, I'm not surrounded by good ol' boys driving around in their pickups with gun racks in the back.

Heck, I haven't even been able to see any gun shops!

Wee Weasley Welshman
9th Jul 2001, 23:50
Nothing ironic in banning firearms - we just decided to do so after a nutter in Hungerford shot a load of people with his AK and then after another nutter shot a load of kids in a primary school with his collection of pistols.

The irony lies in the US position whereby even though a majority are in favour of gun control (Federal referendum anyone?) and they have 46 times more victims annually - they refuse to follow the British example...

OldAge84 - of course its not your handguns killing people. Just like it would not be mine if I had any. The WHOLE POINT is if NOBODY has them then NOBODY gets killed.

Its so simple I almost despair.

The US is of course free to choose its own path. And other countries are free to criticize accordingly.

Cheers,

WWW

ps Old Age - still not addressing the 46 - 1 issue I note.

OldAg84
9th Jul 2001, 23:55
Guvnor, WWW, Hugmonster, et.al

I am not a gun-toting redneck

Generally, I do not support carry laws. I.E. you can carry a gun with permit.

I have not shot any bullet holes through street sign.

I don't mix alcohol and firearms (well, there was that one time at a ranch in Texas)

Most American (even the gunowners) are not toting and certainly not redneck.

Oh, darn, gotta run, got tobacco spit all in my keyboard.

Guvnor-enjoy Greenville.

C. M. Wolf
10th Jul 2001, 00:17
Ah, I'm back.
Let's see...the Guvnor thinks that, American 'hate groups' such as the KKK, is a 'State Militia' and is "Absolutely Flabbergasted".
BWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Well the Guvnor, "I'm Absolutely Happy For You! I certainly do hope that you are very young, because it looks like it's going to take you DECADES of reading simply to find a working knowledge of nearly ANYTHING that your trying to talk about! BWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey the Guvnor! PUT DOWN THAT COMIC BOOK AND STEP AWAY WITH YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR! BWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

--------------------------------------------

Then TowerDog says that he didn't know it was his 'job' to answer 'my' questions.
Well, it's not your 'job'. But then, when did mere conversation ever become 'work'? Although, it does seem to be quite a lot of 'work' for YOU. Doesn't it?! :D

--------------------------------------------

Look Folks, I use ONLY 'C. M. Wolf' when I post here, I have no need to use any other name. But I understand that when you do not like what a messenger has to say, it's much easier to simply kill,(or try to discredit), the messenger! Good Luck with this line of thinking of yours. Let's see just where it takes you.

--------------------------------------------

...And good ol' W.W.W. wants to know if anyone really wants to get into a "pi55ing contest" whenever someone trys to get to the Truth and use Real, Complete Statistics to do it.
It just doesn't look like he has much of anything to really offer in this conversation except unschooled and rampant emotional impressions and disinformation, so I'll only offer the same simplicity back to him, Look Wee Wee, Pi55 Off and leave the running of America to us Americans! Right then, and have a nice day....guv!

--------------------------------------------

How convenient,(and childish), that as soon as I begin to offer links to sites with actual facts in them, the Anti-Gun/Anti-Freedom Advocates, such as Velvet, begin uttering things like "I'll not bother to respond to you again."

Oh whatever! The only things that are missing in a comment like that is; "...And I'm taking my toys and going home! Take THAT! NYEAHH!" or "I'm goin' to tell my Mum what you said to me! You'll get your's! Neener neener neener!"

Fine! Don't "bother" to respond to me again and Go home also, but stay there next time.
It seems that if you can't argue ridiculous semantics about another Nations Laws, Rights, and Lives like a right fine British Bastard Barisster, even though your virtually non-existant and merely selective grasp of our Founding Documents/Papers and Laws are conveniently lacking, THEN GO HOME! This isn't just some 'game' that may be played at or even toyed with at your damned leisure!

--------------------------------------------

Look Everyone...There's one point here that is more obvious than a stout whack to the back of your heads with a bat that you Brit friends seem to be COMPLETELY MISSING!...And that is; 'NO Foriegn government, foreign Nation, or foriegn group of people can dictate, insist, or even effect any change in our American Laws or our American Rights, hence, Our American Lives! You all have no real say in the way 'We The People' of The United States of America live our lives! If ANY of you Non-Americans don't like it, then leave us Americans to hell alone!

All this criticizing of Americans and our Founding American Documents simply because you Foriegners don't like what or how we Americans might do something in our Nation, just isn't going to do any of you a damned bit of good! That is aside from getting maybe a few too many ARMED Americans angry at you, if any of you might call THAT Good.
Would any of you Brits stand for even one second, any Americans or group of Americans stepping up and advocating the change of British Laws merely because they didn't like or understand it and/or merely thought it should be changed?! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking, "HELL NO!" as your answer to this.

For any of you that like to think that guns are very much like Nuclear Weapons and therefore must be removed from all Civilians...World Wide...
Oh for the Love of God, please get an education, that is, any education above the second grade level! Or maybe simply GROWING UP enough to show the slightest maturity in representing the FACTS.
COME ON! Comparing personal firearms to nuclear weapons is just like like comparing a 4th of July skyrocket to an Nuclear ICB Cruise Missile!
Can you just imagine hearing someone say; "I'll be back in a few hours, I'm going out to the range to practice my target shooting of NUCLEAR 20 MEGATON WARHEAD, ICB CRUISE MISSILES. If I'm a bit late, don't wait dinner for me, I'll just grab a sandwich at the PUB afterwards"???!

And you Brits have the UNADULTERATED GALL to suggest that we Americans should get a grip on OURSELVES just because we hold our Right to Keep and Bear Arms Dear to us?!!

Well, try these next comments on for size then;
Hey, All you British Subjects!...Mind your own damned British Business and stop trying to mind our American way of life! If you don't like the way we Americans do things, walk away, get out of America, and go do British things in your own British Empire, and in your own wonderful British Way!
When any one of you Brits can even remotely prove that the 'British Way' is better for all Americans to live by, then, and only THEN, will any you be taken seriously. Until that time, Butt Out of where you don't belong!

Proof Folks, That's right! Actual Proof does show that since England has banned most/all firearms from it's 'Law Abiding Citizens', crime is beginning to SOAR in the UK!!! The very same with Australia, South Africa, and now in Canada! DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT! GO LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELVES!!!

Until That Very Time, Every One Of You Non-Americans Can Pack It In Your Bellhole As Far As The United Nations Statehood And Our American Soveriegnty Is Concerned! Are You All Clear On That?!
We American Citizens KICKED British Arses Once, if we Americans are offered little to no choice, we Americans Citizens WILL KICK British Arses Again!

Beyond that, if ANY 'ONE' of you thinks they're up to it, you're welcome,(Not 'cordially' welcome,mind you, just welcome), to come and try to disarm us Americans Citizens.
NO, I'm Not talking about SENDING someone else to do your dirty work, I mean YOU the very IDIOTS that Advocate Disarming all the world EXCEPT Criminals, Rogue Armies, Various Mercenary Groups, and any other Hate Spreading Socialistic Bastards you can dream up to leave ARMED, come and try it YOURSELVES! You Know, Put Your Money Where Your Mouth IS! Or don't any of you overly Socialistic, Insecure, UN-Sucking...people trully believe that your actions may speak louder than my words, or even your own words for that matter?!

--------------------------------------------

May God Bless the American People.
Sincerely, C. M. Wolf

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: C. M. Wolf ]

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 00:23
I tend to agree with you C.M. but I think a diplomatic post with State Dept. is unlikely.

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 00:35
WWW

You will pardon me if I tend not to believe all the statistics I see. You see I failed statistics in college, so I know how numbers can be skewed (specifically the grading on a curve bit- but I digress)

Let me talk about my personal database if you will. Unfortunatly, most of the shootings I read about take place in hazardous environments, i.e. the inner city, drug deals, etc. The weapons used in these are probably not legal. By all means, take them away and crush them into fine art or something. But, then tell me, a law-abiding citizen, I can't have one?! Bullsh!t, I say.

True gun tragedies- domestic violence, suicide, child playing with guns, yes- the gun should not be that available. I am absolutely in favor of quick background checks, mandatory safety training, trigger locks, etc. But I still maintain, I have a right to a firearm.

I've seen gun tragedies up close, but suicidal kids can hang themselves in the basement as well.

Send Clowns
10th Jul 2001, 00:38
Oldage, I would not like to see the mess of you and friends if you went against even a US Army unit, let alone well-trained troops. However good a shot you are, you are not a trained fighting man.

Of course those thinking firearms should be better-controlled in the US are from outside (I don't think a ban is practical, but we are not the Senate debating legislation here). We know what life is like without firearms being commonly-held by people who have no idea how to use them. We like it. We're pointing out that you need not feel sorry for our lack of the righ to be shot by our children.

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 01:02
Insult me, but don't insult the US Army. I think it's fair to say that brave Britain would be trading with a mostly German speaking Europe if it wasn't for the US Army. Maybe we got into it a little later, but we damn sure helped finish the job. Thousands of American men flew and sailed from England to wage war, in part to help defend England's right to self-government, and never came home. How many British soldiers from the 20th century are buried in the US? Not many I bet, but there are American soldiers buried in cemetaries all over Europe. I think an apology is owed.

Kuwait would be Saddam's doormat (and yes-it was about oil-on both sides)if it wasn't for the US Army and US-led coalition.

Take 20 motivated guy's (and gals) with firearms and -jeez, this is bordering on fantasy. It was a talking point for crying out loud!!!

Let's go back to reality: as mentioned many posts ago- if someone breaks into my home- I have a right, and I think and obligation to my wife and kids, to defend it. And it happened 5 doors away.

And as a matter of fact I'm not worried about my Army coming for me at all, but maybe the Chechyn's, Kurd's, Bosnians(insert appropriate oppressed ethnic/religious minority_________) are. Oh, wait hasn't the British Army waged a war/occupied someplace English speaking-OH, wait that's Northern Ireland.

Finally, if you don't want your kids to shoot you-don't piss them off- or better yet, keep the guns in a secure gunsafe!

Velvet
10th Jul 2001, 01:10
Constable Clipcock not like you to make personal insults - but for your information no, I don't bend over and take it. I'm the 'stand up and be counted' mindset (I just don't use a gun). Also, not like you to wilfully misrepresent someone just becaues you disagree. When did it become mandatory for someone to live in a country to comment on it. Is someone brave just because they have a gun, or think guns are the answer. However, since you know nothing about my history or what I've faced - you can't really comment on my spine or lack of thereof.

Was Ghandi spineless because he advocated peaceful, non-violent protests? Or the Chinese protestors in Tianamen Square when they faced the tanks without weapons. I find your response not worth answering further - you seem to equate bravery with force. I thoughr better of you.

OldAge, you're quite right it's not simple. How many American parents are responsible and keep their weapons away from children - how many actually allow their children to have guns. I believe one of the youngsters who was responsible for one of the school massacres had been bought a gun when he was 12 and his parents thought this not only normal but beneficial to his development.

You are also right that responsible gun owners are not the problem, but how many irresponsible gun owners are there.

As for the rest of your questions - no, there are no simple answers - and neither the Americans nor the British have yet found the answer.

You are right too, most of us who don't live in the US, don't really see the need for private weaponry. We have a different perspective because we don't have a culture of private gun-ownership and don't feel we suffer for the lack. Nor do we feel that emulating the American 'right to bear arms' would make us feel safer in our homes, just the contrary.

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 01:28
Velvet- you quote

"You are right too, most of us who don't live in the US, don't really see the need for private weaponry. We have a different perspective because we don't have a culture of private gun-ownership and don't feel we suffer for the lack. Nor do we feel that emulating the American 'right to bear arms' would make us feel safer in our homes, just the contrary."

I agree-on some level it is cultural- again I respect UK tradition of minimal gun ownership, I concede guns cause problems, but again- for the fifth or tenth time- I expect my right to have one if I so choose-as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others- that's one of the great thing about this country- personal rights held through personal responsibilities.

Finally, no child should be allowed a firearm without adult supervision-period. Laws should punish adults who allow children access to guns.

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: OldAg84 ]

RW-1
10th Jul 2001, 01:41
I've waited on this one, being an american myself.

I believe that one has the right to have a gun, I myself don't.

But what type? hmm... I'm sorry, but those going for fully automatic weapons for "deer hunting" just arounse my suspicion way too much.

The NRA and gun advocates say that their rights are being trampled on if they are forced to endure a 10 day waiting period where they would be thoroughly checked out.

Why is this a problem?

Are there that many questionable NRA and pro gun activists out there?

If you haven't something to worry about, then you needent fear a small waiting period.

I do not consider it to be gov't infringement, when we see way too many handguns in use on the streets.

I see it as anecessary action, to which that group has resisted.

They should be at the forefront pushing for it, and gun locking mechinisms, to secure the future rights of its "Law abiding citizens".

Nil nos tremefacit
10th Jul 2001, 04:04
I've waited a long time to join this debate, but feel that my view is as valid as any others.

Personally I was disappointed when the UK government banned handguns. There were only a small number of people involved and virtually all of them participated in gun sports. I believe that gun control, not abolition, is essential in any society. A record of all owners will prevent the known criminals having legal weapons, will stop children having weapons and will ensure that weapons are properly looked after. By all means own guns, wherever you are in the world, but be sensible, keep them secure and only use them for training and sport.

A check of records and issueing of a licence is not an infringement of rights, but is really a way of codifying the system and clarifying it. We have rights under our new Human Rights Act in the UK - this incidentally only makes it easier to access the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights that have been available to us for half a century. For some reason the writers of the ECHR felt that the right to own a gun was not one that was worth considering. The rights emphasise that the law may make constraints.

Having had the fun of handling automatic and semi-automatic weapons when I was in the Armed Forces, I cannot see any civilian need to own one. The second amendment was written when nobody could conceive of rifles, repeaters, automatics etc. The arms that Americans were given the right to bear were only muskets and pistols with limited range and accuracy. To hide behind the second amendment as an excuse to be able to purchase an arsenal when the intent was only that an individual be properly equipped with one or two weapons is strange to say the least.

I live in a town of 15000 people. Our local police are unarmed. They cover a large rural area outside our town as well as the urban area. The population is unarmed with the exception of a few of the farmers. We have 2 burglaries a year (latest stats), one or two non-domestic assaults and the usual minor drugs and petty vandalism (600/$1000 or so a week is reported). We aren't armed and yet we are not troubled by criminals either. Some posters have argued that the gun is needed for protection, but nobody here fears crime so nobody is armed. Perhaps the desire to protect oneself with a gun is the fault of a crime ridden society. I note that some of the US posters live in similar small towns to mine and don't feel the need to be armed.

I notice that a lot of statistics are being asked for, but those doing the asking have not posted their own. WWW has chosen a selected statistic, it would be nice for those challenging WWW to produce more stats to do the work themselves if they believe that their argument would be supported by them. Mr Wolf, you know who I mean.

I note that there were a couple of incredible stats about the death rates at the hands of US doctors. One person argued that you are 9000 times more likely to die at the hand of a doctor than a gun. 30000 US citizens die of gunshot wounds each year. This means that 270 million US citizens are killed by their doctors every year (just shows that some people's grasp of stats is a bit flawed).

On the subject of rounding up peoples, history teaches us many things, but the world has moved on. Only in one or two parts of Africa and the Balkans are people at risk of being rounded up. In Rwanda machetes were used in 90% of deaths (I read a horrific book on this subject). A few Tutsis had guns. They're all dead now. Had all the Tutsis had guns they would still have been attacked, but more Hutus would have been armed.

Incidentally one poster questioned whether an army would go into houses if they thought there were arms. The answer is yes. In Northern Ireland Government forces and local police on anti-terrorist patrol never went into a house where they didn't think there might be a gun (part of the job was to recover illegal weapons). During the period of internment in the 1970s the security forces rounded up everyone from all sides that they thought might be armed. Being armed was not a protection against the government, but an invitation for the RUC to tumble your drum!

On a similar subject, Mr Wolf (what's the time?), in his rant against foreigners who disagreed with his point of view, had a go at people telling Americans how to live their lives and implying that Americans would never tell anyone else how to run their country. Can I just say to Mr Wolf, and every other American citizen who has any anti-British opinion on how we run the six Irish counties that are part of our kingdom:

" [email protected] off you ignorant tossers. You don't understand history. You never will understand history. Your f*cking shitty dollars caused more death and destruction than you could possibly imagine. Only men with miniscule penises support the IRA or any of the other terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland." (I feel better now.)

[ 10 July 2001: Message edited by: Nil nos tremefacit ]

Constable Clipcock
10th Jul 2001, 05:54
Right then, Velvet, I'll concede I got a bit too personal with the heaping of scorn upon the expressed point of view. For that I apologize.

Just the same, the fact of my differing opinion remains. That the participants of this thread have their minds irrevocably made up already is self-evident, hence any further efforts at persuasion — no matter how thoroughly documented and exhaustively expounded — simply become a waste of time, as well as a source of unnecessary head-butting.

That said, maybe we should all just have a beer instead!

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 05:56
Nil, may I call you Nil?

The point I made was in answer in part to fending off a U.S. Army Unit from my bedroom window. I would probably be at a disadvantage as Fort Bragg is nearby and the troops would likely be the airborne elite.

I have not found a single instance of any counties being occupied by troops heere in the U.S.. In Ireland (even you called them the Irish counties) there are two sides to the story.

Go ahead, tell me to [email protected] off.. but educate me first.

As an aside- both times I have been to the UK I have been grilled at customs. Why? I have a very Irish first name, and a Scots/Irish surname. I have been told it's because of the "troubles". I have no problem with that.

So, go ahead, teach me some history.

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 06:04
Constable

I think you're right. I'm finished with this thread, although I'm waiting for Nil nos to educate me.

That might be a seperate thread.

And the Miller Lite is nice and cold..although a Tetley's would be nice.

mwashi
10th Jul 2001, 06:24
Owning a gun is not a problem. The problem is when a responsible person use that gun out of rage.
How many times people shot other people because of an argument while drunk? Or wife/husband cought the spouse with a lover redhanded in their own house, and act on an impulse with that hunting gun hidden somewhere in the house?

These are all responsible adults. At least they were when they purchased the gun.

old_cross_bound
10th Jul 2001, 07:44
Looks like a few interesting zingers here.

It's the stinking thinking of insulter Hug that first should have been banned in Britain. This would help in the recovery of common sense. You're over your head again Hug.

Then there is the idealistic remarks of the yes lady, Velvet who would like to see the end of all guns on the planet. Funny, I can see Velvet voting to take away guns (from the simple individuals who are already 98% dependent on every governmental whim that comes along) but I can't see her out on the runway with a sledge hammer knocking the missles off a British Air Force fighter.

No thanks, I'll keep all of my guns until all the people on the planet repent. I'll keep my 50 caliber mounted on the tri-pod in the back of the truck for all the plastic bag carrying Asians and sword swinging Africans who are still bent on killing for whatever reason.

I'll let Velvet take her armed and loaded personality to East L.A. and try out her real diplomacy talent there while I record it with a cam from Real TV.

And when the kind and giving governments of the world fly over my place with heat seeking missles, I'll only knock the weapons off their wings with my, Family Protection Device!

ocb ;)

boofhead
10th Jul 2001, 07:49
Hug, I did give a reference to all that I had to say, look back and try it. It is a good reference because it covers all the stuff that has been posted here, with many links to other sites for information that will keep you up all night. But if you don't want to learn, don't bother.

I see most of the poeple who are in favour of gun control do not live in the US, yet they have firm opinions. Those opinions are based on what they read and see on tv, and are therefore affected by the liberal media which has a clear desire to see the whole world disarmed, and only criminals and police/military armed. So to those of us who know better about the real situation, it is frustrating to argue with you, since we do not have a common point of reference.
In the same way, if you ask a relatively informed American what he thinks about the UK, he will generally concentrate on the high cost of everything, the p*ss poor health service, the danger of eating anything in case he gets mad cow disease, and the way the countryside is closed off due to hoof and mouth disease. And would he go out of London to see the countryside, even if it was not closed off? No way, he is afraid of being caught up in one of the race riots, that he sees on TV and that he KNOWS is going on in every city every night. He feels a lot safer in the US than he would in the UK!

Your complaint about what he thinks about the UK is similar to what he would say if he knew what you say about his country.

And yes, the war on drugs is insane (my opinion but shared by a lot of others). It is the source of much of the crime in the US, so it stands to reason that if it was not happening neither would the crime.
The US tried prohibition against alcohol in the 20's and had to give it up when the cost to the people and the country was seen to be so staggeringly high. But the criminals loved it. What did they do to replace the war on alcohol? Yep, that's right, they regulated it instead, making a great deal of legal money for the country in the process. Does it take a rocket scientist to see that the same course of action with drugs would have a similar result?

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the second amendment is still in the US constitution. wishing it away will not work. And there is still an (unorganised) militia (not just the NG or the many State militia groups) and it does include all male citizens 17-45. You can deny it all you like but you cannot change the law just because you don't like it.

Winston Smith
10th Jul 2001, 12:25
As for all that legal balderdash, it's quite simple really:

If there was any way to scrap the Second Amendment, they would have long since done it. The same is true for the First Amendment, which is even more dangerous to the government. That's why we don't have something like that anywhere in Europe!

ocb, I'd really prefer to live in a place like yours! - Could you help me get that Green Card?

Tricky Woo
10th Jul 2001, 14:20
This thread is getting really quite exciting. I think I'll reread the sodding lot and then decide whether I should go out and buy an AK47 or not.

For hunting, you understand.

TW

GeneralAviation
10th Jul 2001, 15:00
OldAge "I expect my right to have one if I so choose-as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others- that's one of the great thing about this country- personal rights held through personal responsibilities."

What when it does infringe on others' rights - which right takes precedent? How many people have been killed (30,000 is quoted), because someone somewhere decided their 'rights' to kill were paramount. Didn't those killed have an equal right to 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

OCB - "I'll keep my 50 caliber mounted on the tri-pod in the back of the truck for all the plastic bag carrying Asians and sword swinging Africans who are still bent on killing for whatever reason. "

When did Asians and Africans with rather primitive weapons invade Texas. Ocb, as usual, makes his heavy handed point - that he is willing to kill anyone even if they are unarmed just to defend his Christian way of life. He may think he's being sarcastic, unfortunately all too many people agree with him and heavily arm themselves just in case they might one day need to defend their families. I've seen some of the arsenals in American homes - you'd think they really were arming themselves against an invading army. Mostly, I think they hanker after the days (Hollywood inspired) when men strapped on a holster and went out to fight the bad guys - or barricaded themselves in their homes against the marauding Indian savages.

What Nil nos was referring to in his inimitable way was that the IRA terrorist activities were heavily funded for decades by American dollars, from Americans whose closest link to Ireland was to drink green beer on St Patrick's Day. They had a romantic and misty eyed view of Ireland, all white-washed cottages and a gentle people being bludgeoned to death by English Red-coat soldiers. I met this view many times on my visits to America during the 70s and 80s.

Points to ponder and facts:
There were a dozen school shootings, most if not all in rural American community schools, during an 18month period, culminating in the Littleton massacre in 1999 - killing 12 students, 1 teacher, injuring 23 and the suicide of the two young killers. In at least one of those dozen school shootings the boy killed his parents as well. When a 6yr old can get hold of a gun and kill a playmate, then it really is time for America to examine whether guns in the home are a good idea.

At that time a nationwide survey found that 70% of Americans believed that a school in their community could suffer a shooting - it would appear they were right.

A few of the dozen shootings
October 1997 - mother and 2 students dead
(killer 16yr)
December 1997 - 3 students dead - 5 wounded (killer 14years old)
March 1998 - 4 students, 1 teacher killed
(killers 13yr and 11yr)
April 1998 - 1 teacher killed
(killer 14yr)
May 1998 - 2 killed, 20 wounded
(killer 15yr)
May 1998 - 1 student killed
(killer 18yr)

prior to that from 1993 to 1996 11 were killed and 5 wounded in school shootings - the age of the killers ranged from 13 - 17. That's only the tip of the iceberg.

A poll carried out in 2000 (by Time) found that 33% of teens say they have witnessed a violent situation at school, but only 8% of parents think their children are exposed to violence at school. Whereas 50% of teens in the poll say they have been insulted or threatened in the past year, but only 22% of parents believe their children have experienced that type of situation. Maybe if the parents had the same exposure as their children, they would be less complacent about the right to 'keep and bear arms'.

What happened to the Gun Control Legislation that appears stalled in Congress because of the powerful pro-gun lobby and the need to ensure that people do not have to wait 24hours (for registration) when buying a handgun at fairs.

Is this the proud record of the 'right to keep and bear arms' that you wish your children and their children to inherit. Is this the personal freedom that you all are so keen on upholding.

We in England may not have it right all the time - but it took only one school shooting for us to decide that enough was enough and keep guns out of private ownership.

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 16:27
My oh my, just when I was trying to extricate myself from this thread.

General Aviation- I will concede that guns are way to easy to obtain here in the U.S. and that guns are not being well kept in te hands of individuals. I think my previous posts speak to this.

I am Pro-Gun control, Pro-Gun-ownership.

I'm am not an National Rifle Assocition NRA member.

I don't keep guns lying around- as it is very difficult to keep them out of the hands of kids and have them reasonably ready to use if you need them.

My dog does a better job of keeping intruders away than the handgun/shotgun they don't know about.

I too find OCB's need to have a .50cal machine gun a little excessive.

Have the two arguments been mixed. gun control vs. gun ownership?

On the next topic- Northern Ireland- I must profess ignorance RE: the history. As such I will refrain from comment should the topic arise again.

Send Clowns
10th Jul 2001, 20:56
Oldage

I implied that the current American soldiers are not particularily skilled, not that they weren't in WWII or that the great bulk of a large army is not useful. You don't really believe the propoganda that 'The American Soldier is the finest in the world...' do you? Best-equipped, yes. As a bulk, the US Army is the most powerful military force in the world, yes. As far as training and battle skills, fairly average I'm afraid. Some of the stories would scare you.

Your most senior officers are very competent. Your pilots very good, Navy pretty good though both tend towards very conventional with little initiative. Your soldiers? Very numerous, well-equipped and fairly well-supported, slightly ill-disciplined, no initiative, unfit (though very strong as they tend to use the gym, that is no use on the battlefield), don't shoot accurately in battle. US Marines? Likewise. UK _reserve_ forces consider US regulars, even some US special forces, a bit of a joke.

Your whole ground force set-up is based on bulk rather than competence or accuracy, it is a completely different philosophy.

Oh, and mainland Britain would have remained independent without US help. We were with you, rescuing Europe. Germany offered peace to both our countries, we turned it down, you did eventually. We fought Germany to a standstill, and even if she had invaded did you see the plan for Operation Sealion? Stood no chance.

Sorry to disabuse you of two comfortable certainties in one post, dear boy. :(

mutt
10th Jul 2001, 21:48
Nil nos tremefacit

I'm waiting patiently for you to give us a history lesson on Ireland!

Mutt. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/guin.gif

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 22:01
If there is a flaw with the American forces it is the fact they are too often led from
Washington. I think our episode in Somalia speaks to that. If British armed forces have an advantage in real world situations, at least part of it stems from less restrictive ROEs, which hamper American initiative. I'll concede that point.
Was the Russian Army of WW2 better quality than the Germans- I think not-mass has it's advantages. As for equipment, we pretty much have the most and best.
Finally, the pace of operations and deployments is causing NCO's and junior/mid-level officers to leave the service in droves, I will allow this doesn't help quality. When the U.S. stops committing itself to places where there is no national interest this will improve. Pound for pound there might be better militaries, but I still say we can take on any opponent.

Please note- I said you would be trading with a German speaking continent- not speaking German yourself. The UK stood alone for 2+ years and I have no doubt it would have been too expensive to invade- with or without the implications of Operation Barbarossa. So I'm not disabused of this notion. I can stand one a day maybe, but not two.

Does this have anything to do with American Gun laws?

Send Clowns
10th Jul 2001, 22:33
Well, not really anything to do with gun law, OldAge, except for Velvet's point that a militia would not fight effectively against trained soldiers.

OldAg84
10th Jul 2001, 22:42
Send Clowns

It was sort of a rhetorical question...but thanks for getting me back on track..

boofhead
10th Jul 2001, 22:43
Wee Willy, the murder rate in the US is only 5 times that of the UK. To call it 46 times, disregarding all the non-gun murders, is obfuscation. It is terrible that the rate in the US is so high, of course, and that point should be addressed. But to put it in perspective, if guns were the cause of murder, then the rate for the UK should be much lower than it is, since there are so few gun murders there. If the same ratio of gun murder to all other forms of murder were to apply in the UK as it does in the US, the rate would not be 1.35, it would be 0.08 (two thirds of 0.11). In fact there are 13 times as many people killed in the UK without the use of a gun, so guns themselves cannot possibly be the cause of murder. It is simplistic to blame guns for a problem with violent behaviour. If the perp does not have a gun, he will still kill his victim. Taking away the guns will not stop murder, as the stats in the UK (and elsewhere) prove.
One conclusion you could draw from the stats is that the citizens in the UK are less violent, and violent crime is not as much of a problem as it is in the US. If you take out of the equation the drug/gang killings in the US, the rate of murder is similar to that of the UK, which I offer in support of my argument that the insane war on drugs needs to be stopped.

Most guns are not used, period. They are kept by collectors, sportsmen or those who believe they are necessary for self-defence. So what? Those people almost never take them out to shoot anyone, family or not. The number of guns actually used to shoot someone, legitimately or otherwise, is less than 1% of 1%. So why be afraid of guns? Is it ignorance?

GeneralAviation
11th Jul 2001, 00:26
boof - don't you think the number of children killed by children is justification for more gun control - not complacency. OldAge is right it is about control not ownership. Trouble is the right to own a gun takes precedent over the need to control them. So children will continue to die needlessly.

However on that thorny issue of the right to bear arms - you may be interested in an article written for Time Magazine. It would seem even for Supreme Court - the 'right' is not as clear as most Americans would have you believe.

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
by Alain Sanders – Time Magazine

About the only thing that can be said with certainty about the right to keep and bear arms is that the extent of that right is uncertain. For one thing, the wording of the Second Amendment is ambiguous. For another, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down very few decisions in cases involving the Second Amendment. This has allowed politics to overtake most discussions of the Amendment, clouding popular understanding of what it may actually mean. Here is a brief survey of the few but major legal guideposts:

That there is a right to bear arms is undeniable, but that there is a context for its exercise is also undeniable. The wording of the Amendment makes the two propositions clear:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the Second Amendment, but it is stated in the context of a well-regulated militia and the security of a free state. Whether that context is a limitation on the right, or an explanation of why the right exists, is a subject of much scholarly debate. Moreover, whatever the right may be, there is also debate as to whether the right is a right of the people or a right of the states.

The only modern U.S. Supreme Court case directly addressing the reach of the Second Amendment has held that the militia phrase operates as a limitation on the right. The decision, United States –v- Miller, was handed down unanimously in 1939. In the ruling, the Justices upheld a National Firearms Act provision requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns.

Conservative Justice James McReynolds wrote for the Court:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The last sentence is critical. It plainly indicates that the Second Amendment right "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view"--that is, the continuation and effectiveness of militia forces. How far any limits to that "end in view" are to operate, however, is left vague in the Miller decision. And subsequent Supreme Courts have not had occasion to provide any definitive clarification. The point to be noted, though, is that when faced with a direct question on the reach of the Second Amendment, the Court specifically decided that the right to bear arms is not absolute, is qualified by the responsibilities of maintaining militias, and may be regulated by Congress.

Another important factor in the small arms-control debate is federalism. Like all the other Bill of Rights Amendments, the Second Amendment was originally added to the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government only. Both the 1876 decision of United States –v- Cruikshank and the 1886 decision of Presser –v- Illinois recognized this and explicitly stated the Second Amendment limits the power of the federal government only. The basic liberties of the Bill of Rights did not become applicable to the states until after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Through a tortuous, decades-long process, the Court eventually adopted the view that certain fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights could be incorporated through the due process clause and turned into limits against the power of the states also. In separate decisions, the right of free speech, the right to freely exercise one's religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on, were made applicable to the states by the Justices. The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment. The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government. The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations. They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws.

These then are the general legal parameters that presently define the right to bear arms. They establish that the Second Amendment, like all the other Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. The vague legal boundaries set down thus far answer some questions but they also leave many more open. None of the questions, however, carry the kind of easy answers that so many ardent gun rights and gun control activists so confidently assert.

Davaar
11th Jul 2001, 00:40
Send Clowns, how would you class, as professional or militia, the opposing forces at the Battle of New Orleans? Or Sam Houston's chaps who cleaned up Santa Ana and his army in 20 minutes at the Battle of San Jacinto?

Wee Weasley Welshman
11th Jul 2001, 03:07
boofhead - the Journal of Epidimology provides the 46 - 1 stats for MURDERS involving fireams. A well respected and international established professional publication verus... where is your infomation from again?

Come ON guys. You CANNOT be serious. You are telling me that unfettered access to powerful handguns in NO WAY increases the number of shootings in society?!?! That DEFIES normal common sense.

I don't give a toss that some Yanks like to spend their time firing powerful weapons - I would like to do the same thing too. Its just that I realise that I am not special and therefore everyone else would have to have the same access and unfortunately other people are crap and unfit to access firearms.

For the General Good therefore I am willing to forgoe a personal freedom and enjoyment for the benefit of the wider society. A fact the "Freedom Loving" peoples of the good 'ole US of A seem unable to grasp.

WWW

ps plus I am still a better shot than half the wide arsed Yankees posting their drivel on these pages.

Winston Smith
11th Jul 2001, 04:01
Johannesburg - In yet another display of the total disregard for life in the so-called democratic new South Africa, the twelve-year-old Bianca de Lange miraculously escaped death when she was shot in the chest and arm by a black in Wilro Park because he wanted her cellphone. She was accompanied by her two younger brothers and 13-year-old cousin, and were walking home when a black who demanded her cellphone confronted them. She refused and held it behind her back. He then shot her in the chest, narrowly missing her heart and the bullet excited through the arm behind her back. According to the children the suspect was between 14 and 17 years of age. (SCA News)

Another case of "gun violence" - I think the weapon should be given a good spanking! Let's just hope the kids' parents always keep their gun cabinets securely locked so as not to expose them to even more danger.


The 38-year-old Shirley Spittal begged cried out for help while she tried in vein to ward-off stab upon stab of the barbaristic attack of her murderers. Spittal, of Weltevredenpark north west of Johannesburg was stabbed at least 21 times by two black attackers while her domestic worker ran to neighbours for help. Such were the force of the stabs that detectives find pieces of the broken-off blades in her body. The three Spittal children, Andrew (6), James (10), en Sarah (12), were on holiday when they heard the life shattering news of their mothers death. About R15 000 worth of household goods were stolen from the house. The Azanian (new SA) SABC 'His Masters Voice' hardly found a murder and the trauma of the little children mentionable. However when a black poacher was killed and when aids sufferer Nkosi Johnson passed away, it became an ongoing media ordeal. It would be interesting to see if Mnet's Carte Blanche team even regard it mentionable as they did in the case of Nkosi Johnson. No arrests have been made. (SCA News)

At least no gun was used. Just imagine: if the woman or her domestic worker had had one available, the two attackers might have been killed. In this case the overall murder rate would have gone up by one, while - what is more important - the GUN DEATH FIGURES would have increased by a shocking TWO! (I'm well aware of my cynicism, which is due to my being sick at having to read this sort of thing. Needless to say, I do not want it to be misinterpreted as "humour".)


Johannesburg - An attorney, the 42-year-old Antony Sher was shot in the stomach by 3 armed blacks who confronted him in a parking lot in Braamfontein on Friday morning. The robbers allegedly also robbed him of an amount of cash and fled in a Toyota Cressida. Two policemen who noticed the shooting gave chase and arrested the men when they were involved in an accident. TWO UNLICENSED FIREARMS WERE CONFISCATED [my emphasis]. Sher is in a serious but stable condition. (SCA News)

Come to think of it, that way they WILL eventually get ALL the guns. Simply stop the influx of new weapons and collect the old ones as soon as they turn up on the scenes of yet-to-be-committed crimes - I guess it won't take too long since reports such as the above-cited come in daily. However, it will probably be even much quicker than that since the under-privileged can be counted upon to hand their guns in voluntarily as soon as all those evil gun-toting racists (we have seen them on TV in the eighties) have been disarmed FIRST. Only when the last remnants of apartheid have been rooted out will everyone be able to live in peace and prosperity forever.

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: Winston Smith ]

old_cross_bound
11th Jul 2001, 04:15
Wee Weasley Welshman

For the General Good therefore I am willing to forgoe a personal freedom and enjoyment for the benefit of the wider society. A fact the "Freedom Loving" peoples of the good 'ole US of A seem unable to grasp.


***For the general GOOD? What is GOOD for the general? Do you have a choice in owning or not owning a family protection device. I don't think so. And you probably consider this as "freedom" just as loosely as you consider the term Good.

The American law concerning guns was put into the constitution of the United States just for this kind of stinking thinking. It was and is designed to keep at bay, a growing governments infringement on personal rights, something the British have been hoodwinked into thinking they have when in fact they don't have at all.

Socialism and Monarchy's don't like that kind of thing you know. When it comes to the bottom line, when the propaganda and the social engineering of the NWO fails, you'll see what rights you really have. Until then, the plan is to keep people like yourself fat and happy while you do their dirty work for them in society, and it's working, a spendid agenda indeed.

BTW, how would you know if you were a better shot or not than an American IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A GUN? Silly. If the U.S Government goes wacko here and around the world, you'll be the first one to support the American gun law.

ocb

Rollingthunder
11th Jul 2001, 04:22
sans comment:

UNITED NATIONS - A United Nations plan to curb trafficking in small arms is meeting opposition from a number of nations, most notably the United States.

INDEPTH: Gun Control
U.S. diplomats say they will oppose any regulations that interfere with the right of citizens to own guns, or with the legal weapons trade.
On Monday, 189 countries began to meet with
representatives on both sides of the gun control debate. They intend to discuss ways to stop the illegal sale of small arms, which UN officials say is both lucrative and is implicated in 1,000 deaths a day. Canada's delegation is led by Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific Rey Pagtakhan. In a pre-conference summit, Pagtakhan said
Canada is "committed to a global action plan to deal comprehensively with the problems
related to small arms and light weapons."

During the conference Pagtakhan will table a
study commissioned by Canada called, Putting
Children First: A Framework for International
Action to Address the Impact of Small Arms on
Children.
The conference aims for an agreement on the
sale of pistols, assault rifles and machine guns by July 20, but reaching that goal is likely to be tough.
Besides the objections of the United States about its citizens' rights, some countries are concerned about profits, others about defence.

Constable Clipcock
11th Jul 2001, 05:53
At least OUR army doesn't pay for sex-changes. Hell, we don't even ALLOW them!

And Weasley... don't believe everything you see on TV — not all of us Americans are obese (6'1", 168# and a 30" waist here).

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: Constable Clipcock ]

OldAg84
11th Jul 2001, 06:42
WWW

I think you're right, if your not special, you don't deserve anything...

After much thought and a few Guinesses (Guini?): not neccessarily in that order, I've come to the following:

It's not so much the subject as it is having somebody else tell me what's good for me.

boofhead
11th Jul 2001, 07:18
Wee Willy, I've given you the link already, and besides it is figures from your own post I was using.

I am having trouble getting my message through, but I will try again: It is violence that is the problem. The 'tool' used is not as important as that. I would appreciate your response to this statement.

Taking away the guns would, if the UK stats are examined to see the effect of a limited number of guns in circulation, show that people kill other people even when guns are not available. If there are plenty of guns, maybe there is a case that the murder rate is higher, but I doubt that taking them away would reduce the rate to zero or anything close to it. The murder rate in the US for non-gun crimes is higher than the total UK rate, which proves that the US is a more violent place, and THAT is what should be addressed.

Take a look at the stats I have linked, and you will see that the guns deaths listed for the US include murder, accident, suicide and legitimate shootings by the police. The part we are all concerned about, the illicit use of a gun to take the life of an innocent, is around 2%, nowhere near the 6.8%, which is the total gun death rate.

This is not good, and nobody should be proud of it, but it is not as bad as some (you) make it out to be.

old_cross_bound
11th Jul 2001, 08:40
Does anyone here have a couple of rocket launchers they want to get rid of?

I'd like to get at least two right now and I'll pay a fair price.

I'd like about a half a mile range on them with attachments included, thanks.

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: old_cross_bound ]

GeneralAviation
11th Jul 2001, 14:05
OldAge, I think you'll find that's what most of the rest of the world feel about Amerians who decide what is best for everyone else - then use their economic or military might to enforce it.

Also how most of us feel about ocb - who not only displays a remarkable ignorance about history, politics, religions or philosophy but insists that this ignorant and ill-informed view is the only one allowed.

His responses on a variety of threads in the past few days have underlined why very few posters even bother to read, let alone respond to him. He may assume that he is displaying a wonderful wit and panache and that his rather over-reactive style will make people stop and think about issues, unfortunately, all he does is confirm that he is incapable of rational and responsible thinking.

He seems unable to mention certain posters without insulting them, presumably because he's feeling somewhat intellectually inferior. He is neither clever nor humorous, despite his over indulgence in graemlin smilies. No doubt, he sits at his computer smirking gleefully at his heavy sarcastic comments, imagining people squirming in anguish from his nasty little personally offensive remarks.

His quote to arm out the window on another thread says it all really - and expresses very aptly how most pruners view OCB.

"If you decide to really think about something interesting and then expressing your thoughts in a logical, reasonable and comprehensible manner, I'll try to reply. Until then nonsense is just nonsense, I agree! "


I suspect that behind the facade is someone who feels totally inadequate on this bulletin board and wants to appear more controversial than he really is - thus hiding his inability to make a worthwhile contribution. That would explain why he 'cuts and pastes' from others. He's created a character and is now locked into remaining forever the Prune Court Jester - the sad, silly clown whom no-one takes seriously and everyone either ignores or occasionally throws a metaphorical bone for him to gnaw on.

Guess you have to feel sorry for him really - nahhhh let him burn in hell :D

OldAg84
11th Jul 2001, 16:28
GA

I will agree with the first paragraph of your last post. The US has always been good at stirring things around the world, although we aren't the only ones.

WhatsaLizad?
11th Jul 2001, 18:35
The anti-gun statistics crowd still totally misses the major difference in murder rates with E.U. countries compared to the U.S.

I will say it again, if you import into any E.U. country the same group that is responsible for most of the violent crime in the U.S, you will have a massive increase in murder rates. It will not matter if there are guns or a total absence of them. Your rate will skyrocket.

Read the story link here.
http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/11/loc_flurry_of_shots.html

Take the murder and crime rate in the Cincinnati metro area. Absent the bad behavior of a small group in a small geographic area, I know the crime rate there would be extremely low.

old_cross_bound
11th Jul 2001, 22:17
Hi GA,

Sounds like your having a rather good day at the keyboard today. Did you get permission to type this rubish?

You said:

He may assume that he is displaying a wonderful wit and panache and that his rather over-reactive style will make people stop and think about issues,

***Such irony GA, I like it! What did you do when you first read my post if you didn't stop and think? Did you stop and emote or is this post just another nonthinking reply again?

Thanks, ocb ;)

Wee Weasley Welshman
11th Jul 2001, 22:59
Well if you don't believe the 46 - 1 stats lets just run with your 5 - 1 stats. You are HAPPY with a murder rate FIVE times higher than a comparable country. Wow.

The only way I know I am a good shot is via access to military arms in a competition setting.

Whereas I am not interested in getting into drawing specific examples from US recent history I will do so for the UK:

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.

Its called learning by your mistakes and its a *very* healthy thing to do.

I challenge ANYONE who owns a high power pistol to explain to the Dunblane parents Ricky, Louise, Jane, Tony, Bob, Sybil, Maureen, Thomas, Jack, Synthia, Carol, Dave, Michael, Andrew, Martin, Kirsty, Jennifer and ALL the rest just WHY they need to possess a pistol. I am sure that your arguements of personal freedom and law abiding careful useage will pall into irrelevance with the loss of their children.

As I said; whilst a keen gun enthusiast I am incredibly proud of the fact that in my country guns are very very hard to get hold of and use.

WWW

Send Clowns
12th Jul 2001, 00:07
WWW I'm afraid I start to disagree with you on the Dunblane incident. The gun laws at the time were sufficient, but no enforced. He should never have had a firearms certificate. No gun club allowed him membership - they were responsible, the police were not. Banning handguns was a disgraceful political reaction to a single incident where the class people who behaved well were the ones punished.

There is *no* gun violence I have seen reported in this country linked to people who legitimately hold firearms certificates and shoot in gun clubs. Why ban this sport? Going for perfect safety why not ban non-essential car journeys? Cars kill 10 a _day_ on UK roads.

Send Clowns
12th Jul 2001, 00:19
A good reason for police *not* to carry guns :D

http://www.excite.co.uk/news/story/UKOnlineReportOddlyEnough/IDSFFH81147_2001-07-11_00-48-51_GRE103068

Luckily they were so well-trained with firearms that no-one was hurt :eek: !

Wee Weasley Welshman
12th Jul 2001, 01:52
Dublane could not happen now because he could not have access never mind home storage to such weapons.

Thats all that really matters in the end.

Take up a new sport. Archery is pretty good.

Clay pidgeon shooting is more fun than target work.

I never ever want to see another Dublane and if that means a HANDFUL of law abiding sensible weapons enthusiasts have to be disadvantaged then So-Be-It.

WWW

boofhead
12th Jul 2001, 02:11
Wee Willy, that's not fair. In my last two posts I said that the high rate of gun deaths in the US was 'terrible' and 'not good', I did not say I liked it.


Last April a lady in Washington State had to shoot an intruder, a guy who had two previous convictions for assault against her in the last year and had spent time in prison for them. He was under a restraining order, but he broke into her apartment and threatened to kill her. When he chased her into her bedroom she shot him dead.

Last friday a 21 yr old in Chicago shot at a rival gang member from a car and hit a 4 yr old boy instead, killing him.

These two stories are different because the first was not given any coverage in the media since it did not fit their agenda, while the second has a lot of attention. But they are the same because to a gun control supporter, both the woman in Washington and the gang banger are evil.

But what if the liberals (US definition) got their way and took the guns away from the honest folk? (they admit that the crims cannot be touched, so they will still have guns). The lady would have been raped and murdered, and the young boy would still be dead. Sometimes I despair that there are two parallel worlds operating at the same time; the real one, where I live, and Dreamonland, where the libs reside.

Look at some of the things the liberal ratbags have done lately, in the cause of gun control and crime supression:

3rd grade kids suspended from school for pointing a finger at a schoolmate and saying "bang".

A kid in California suspended for drawing a picture of a gun with crayon.

A high school student, active in a Scottish club and a bagpipe player, expelled from school for a year because his scottish regalia, which he wore to the prom, had a ceremonial dagger.

A 54 year old man, first offence of possessing $20 (one quarter ounce) of cocaine, sentenced to life in prison, no parole. (reversed on appeal, fortunately).

Murders only happen because of guns? A guy in Phoenix was sentenced to life for the murder of his girlfriend's 2 yr old daughter by pouring gasolene on her and setting her on fire.

Take away the guns and the world will become a perfect place? Dream on.

Constable Clipcock
12th Jul 2001, 02:56
Interesting commentary, Weasley...

"Take up a new sport. Archery is pretty good."

Ever see what razorheads can do to living tissue? (I have)

Why do you NEED a crossbow or a longbow? (not opposed to them, merely applying the same so-called reasoning)

For that matter, let's touch on another item far more central to this website and riddle me this: why do you NEED a pilot certificate? (again, same line of reasoning applied)

(CAA bureaucrat: "After all, these nasty little aeroplanes can cause injury or death! We have to protect the PUBLIC! Why, it simply wouldn't DO for an ordinary British subject to be entrusted with such power. Only those who have been carefully selected, thoroughly schooled and rigorously tested by HM Forces — or who can show an offer of employment from BA! — ought to lawfully be entrusted with the ability to operate such a device.")

"Clay pidgeon shooting is more fun than target work."

Somewhat more realistic, since combat shooting often involves moving targets anyway. Why do you NEED to develop and maintain THAT skill?

"I never ever want to see another Dublane and if that means a HANDFUL of law abiding sensible weapons enthusiasts have to be disadvantaged then So-Be-It."

I can understand your sentiment at not wishing to see a recurrence, but rest assured, the perp there was a pathological personality in the first place. He would have found another method — possibly a crossbow or a fire-bomb. Penalizing the innocent on the basis of a "what if?" or "MIGHT happen" approach is NOT the way to deter such lunatics.

Let's take a glance at those young punks who committed the previously cited school shootings here in the US for a moment. Were you aware that in each and every case — WITHOUT EXCEPTION — the perpetrators had a well-established history of cruelty to animals? For them, killing humans was merely a graduation exercise; anyone who claims they "had no idea this would happen" is either an idiot, a liar or both.

These episodes COULD have been pre-empted WITHOUT resorting to a general ban on a given class of weaponry. Where the system failed was in its failure to either smack some sense into those young hoodlums — and FAST! — or failing that, to cull them from society so that they could do no harm by ANY means.

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: Constable Clipcock ]