PDA

View Full Version : Who needs a GUN


Flying Binghi
8th Jun 2008, 12:22
Up to seven people were killed and a dozen injured in Tokyo today when a man drove a truck into a crowd in a busy shopping district before slashing and stabbing passersby with a knife, apparently at random.

Today's attack took place exactly seven years after a man with a history of mental illness burst into an elementary school and killed eight children.

........video game district also known as Electric Town - Wonder what games he played?

more at -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/japan

PyroTek
8th Jun 2008, 12:29
And i've been to Akihabara (Electric Town (City)) four times!
Scary stuff.
I am surprised the guy didn't commit suicide too.. Japan DOES have one of the highest suicide rates, also, ironically, the oldest average age of death...

Howard Hughes
8th Jun 2008, 12:37
It must be catching... (http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/woman-in-court-over-chips-death/2008/06/08/1212863424314.html):rolleyes:

Peter Fanelli
8th Jun 2008, 13:06
I'm sure the British contingent will be here soon to condemn knife ownership, just as they condemn with relish gun ownership in the USA whenever there's an incident there.

Then again, maybe they wont.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime?page=2

tony draper
8th Jun 2008, 13:13
Something occurred to me when I was watching this on the news,the guy has been caught he was caught literally red handed,there are probably 500 witnesses who saw him do it, there is very probably CCTV of him committing the crime ,there is no doubt whatsoever that he committed the crime, there is no question whatsoever of his guilt or innocence, he is guilty,so why bother holding a trial? why not just hand him straight over to the Judge for sentencing?
:cool:

Flying Binghi
8th Jun 2008, 13:17
why not just hand him straight over to the Judge for sentencing

Frightened that the 'WHY' may not be palatable to you Mr draper ? :hmm:

Peter Fanelli
8th Jun 2008, 13:52
Frightened that the 'WHY' may not be palatable to you Mr draper ?


Who cares about the why?

Is there a valid excuse for a killing spree that might be discovered during a trial?

Notso Fantastic
8th Jun 2008, 14:24
Something occurred to me when I was watching this on the news,the guy has been caught he was caught literally red handed,there are probably 500 witnesses who saw him do it, there is very probably CCTV of him committing the crime ,there is no doubt whatsoever that he committed the crime, there is no question whatsoever of his guilt or innocence, he is guilty,so why bother holding a trial? why not just hand him straight over to the Judge for sentencing?
Because, Drapes, for example, the British Police may conclude they could not proceed with a prosecution because although he was caught with bodies around holding a knife dripping with blood, he just may have been out a whittlin' wood and helping people who's shoelaces had knotted!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024672/Masked-men-caught-church-roof-stealing-lead--thats-evidence-say-police.html

frostbite
8th Jun 2008, 15:50
If your near impeccable (IMO) logic were to be followed in such several cases, Mr D., then there would be a lot less work for lawyers.

Wouldn't be allowed.

tony draper
8th Jun 2008, 16:16
Giving the matter further thought, why bother with the Judge? just hand him over to the executioner.
:cool:

ArthurR
8th Jun 2008, 16:25
Why bother with the Executioner, don't our troops under training need targets :E

Scooby Don't
8th Jun 2008, 16:42
If only someone nearby had been armed with a handgun, this tragic event event may have been prevented, or at least curtailed. Of course, such freedom to defend themselves is not available to the Japanese people, nor the British, French, German or Canadian people... :ugh:

Funny how the armed crime rate has gone down in US states which allow lawful concealed carry, yet seems to go up wherever handguns are banned.

G-CPTN
8th Jun 2008, 16:54
Couldn't someone have challenged him to a game of knife, stone, paper?

Two's in
8th Jun 2008, 16:56
there is no question whatsoever of his guilt or innocence, he is guilty,so why bother holding a trial?

It's called due process for a reason. In this case there is no doubt as to his guilt, but life is seldom like that. A speedy trial should resolve this satisfactorily, but there is no reason why it can't be the same due process where the accused's guilt is less obvious. Otherwise we might end up summarily executing people because they look shifty or are Brazilian electricians...

Dushan
9th Jun 2008, 01:36
7 Die in Tokyo Stabbing Rampage (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/7-die-in-tokyo-stabbing-rampage/20080608063309990001)

In a gun free Japan, a mad man with a knife kills 7 people. If there was just one armed citizen around many people's lives would have been saved.

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

rotaryman
9th Jun 2008, 01:42
Then maybe we would have had 1 mad man with a gun and 14 dead!

remember guns and Knives don't kill people.... People kill people....:ouch:

Lydia Dustbin
9th Jun 2008, 01:55
Citizens with Guns is not the solution. Citizens have guns in canada and the US and that does not stop street crime and muggings, the police carry guns, thats what they are for.

TowerDog
9th Jun 2008, 01:56
Or if the killer had 5 guns, he could have killed 25 people like the lunatics do in the US where gun control are non-existent for all practical purpose.

Davaar
9th Jun 2008, 02:03
Where do you get your information on Canada, Lydia?

Dushan
9th Jun 2008, 02:10
Tigs,
in Canada handguns are restricted to shooting ranges. No one is allowed to carry a loaded, concealed handgun.

In US, the recent crimes committed by lunatics occurred in "gun free zones" like university campuses.

As soon as the lunatics know that they can commit their evil deeds unharmed they will proceed. If the guy in Tokyo knew that there is a chance of an armed citizen being on the street he wouldn't have shown up. Plain and simple.

We are not talking about one-on-one crime here. Nothing will ever prevent those attempts, although as someone mentioned elsewhere, if the criminals know that a neighborhood is "armed" they will not venture in it.

Flying Binghi
9th Jun 2008, 02:16
It would be interesting to know why this guy targeted the video game district ?

Lydia Dustbin
9th Jun 2008, 02:21
Davaar, Dushan
Sorry, i thought in Canada people had the right to have guns etc, pretty much as the states. Obviously not. Thanks

Ascend Charlie
9th Jun 2008, 02:22
"...oh, I learned long ago,
when i was still young,
that the way to get shot
is to carry a gun...":(

Lydia Dustbin
9th Jun 2008, 02:25
Ascend Charlie

That story sounds both interesting and painful!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
9th Jun 2008, 02:26
If the guy in Tokyo knew that there is a chance of an armed citizen being on the street he wouldn't have shown up. Plain and simple.
Do you really believe that? :confused:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
9th Jun 2008, 02:29
If only someone nearby had been armed with a handgun, this tragic event event may have been prevented, or at least curtailed.or more probably, the person carrying the gun would say "Great here's my chance to loose off a few rounds, maybe kill the guy and not get in trouble" and then he'd probably increase the death toll by nailing a few onlookers by mistake :rolleyes:

Of course, had he actually gone through a CCW class, the outcome may have been different. :8

Whatever :zzz:

Flying Binghi
9th Jun 2008, 02:35
As soon as the lunatics know that they can commit their evil deeds unharmed they will proceed.


What if this lunatic had continued his rampage driving the truck down the footpath ? I doubt an armed citizin would have done much good.

IMHO, we need to look more at the 'why' rather then try to rectify the problem after people have started to die.

Gun, Knife, Vehicle, etc, control doesnt stop the lunatics.

I think we need to look at the impact continuous media and movie violence has on many people.

If an actress hair style or diet can affect millions of women around the world, what does a daily diet of death and destruction via media and movies do to some peoples minds ?

Davaar
9th Jun 2008, 02:36
Also, Ascend and Lydia, not very likely.

I do not have the statistics to hand, but they are or were available and I did once check. The incidence of violent crime in areas of the USA where one may legally "carry" was far below the incidence where one may not. Canada's murder capital, as I recall, is Regina, Sask., and the instrument of choice is the knife.

Bushfiva
9th Jun 2008, 02:39
hy bother holding a trial? why not just hand him straight over to the Judge for sentencing?

Um, in Japan, that's pretty much what trials are. Conviction rates were much lower before they abolished the jury system. People under sentence of death aren't told the date of their execution: it just happens one morning. And as Wikipedia puts it, "failing to secure a conviction would be seen as serious failure in (the judge's) judgment for pressing charges in the first place and even a single failure would have a serious negative impact on the career of a prosecutor, which is considered more important than an individual's guilt or innocence."

Dushan
9th Jun 2008, 02:42
What if this lunatic had continued his rampage driving the truck down the footpath ?


Anything firing one of these would have stopped a truck...

http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/STmonster_1103A.jpg

FakePilot
9th Jun 2008, 02:42
Davaar, Dushan
Sorry, i thought in Canada people had the right to have guns etc, pretty much as the states. Obviously not. Thanks

"Pretty much as the states" huh? Here in Maryland we're not allowed to carry a ready gun unless we have a permit. Also, we can't transport guns unless we're going to a shooting event, buying, or transporting to a new residence. In other words, don't get caught carrying a gun around.

Not all the states are the same. And yes, the more gun crime you have in a state the more restrictions there are? Chicken,egg? Egg, Chicken?

And you can see the liberal bias in the media. Look at CNN. The article is titled ".. stabs 17. " If someone in the US used a gun, it's " ... kills 10."
Very small difference, but think about it.

Lydia Dustbin
9th Jun 2008, 02:43
Regna Sask, sounds a bit like London.

FakePilot
9th Jun 2008, 02:44
Quote:
What if this lunatic had continued his rampage driving the truck down the footpath ?

Anything firing one of these would have stopped a truck...



It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it!

Dushan
9th Jun 2008, 02:47
Fake Pilot,
if that's what she told you, don't believe her. She is consoling you...

powerstall
9th Jun 2008, 02:49
remember guns and Knives don't kill people.... People kill people....:ouch:

and it's how you use them..... :suspect:

Lydia Dustbin
9th Jun 2008, 02:53
Fake

The article is titled ".. stabs 17. " If someone in the US used a gun, it's " ... kills 10."

Thats CNN for you.

He killed 7 though. How many were killed by the truck? I don't know. Actually to stab 17 before being brought down is no mean feat, he must have been going at it like something out of a bruce lee movie. Scary scary stuff!

powerstall
9th Jun 2008, 03:03
surely, he was on something to have done all those things... and in a jiff! :ok:

CityofFlight
9th Jun 2008, 03:13
Don't you think that if someone is Hell bent on violence (and killing), they'll find a method, regardless of weapon laws?

Dushan
9th Jun 2008, 03:20
Yes,
but restrictive weapons laws prevent people from protecting themselves, and others, from lunatics who are hell-bent on committing these acts.

CityofFlight
9th Jun 2008, 03:32
Couldn't agree more...but then, only in the US can you be charged with injuring/killing someone while protecting your home with said permit to own. One has to prove self defense, with the suspect intent on injuring/killing the victim. Great, let me take the time in my adrenaline filled mind to ponder that one. Then there's the permit to carry...which may have kept this incident of death down to zero OR it could've meant that several good citizens packing adrenaline filled minds & guns could've let bullets fly causing the wrong outcome of "friendly fire".

There's no solution to right to bear arms in our country. Granted, I'm for it, but with the amount of idiots in our country, it's also the reason why the volumes of violence are committed with guns. One can't pretend that there's not a correlation.

Flying Binghi
9th Jun 2008, 03:37
lunatics who are hell-bent on committing these acts

Why are these mass killings happening ?

Violence has been with humans since... long ago.

The violence had a reason though and tended to be targeted for personal and ongoing power/ greed/ feed the family, etc, or to remove an unfaithfull partner and so on.

Violent TV and movies come along and suddenly we get a dramatic increase in random mass killings. I wonder if theres a link ?

CityofFlight
9th Jun 2008, 03:49
In some of our worst episodes, as on a school campus, these acts were committed by people with mental illness. Pushed by what they believed was some act of alienation or bullying by others.

I am of the belief that many types with such an illness either behave as loners or rise to the status of Hitler's or Saddam Hussein's.

Either way, they are sick with a certain sense of narcissism or victimization. The Unibomber here in the US is a classic example of finding a method regardless of the laws.

Darwin at it's finest hour.

CityofFlight
9th Jun 2008, 03:55
P.S. And yes...I also agree with you that the incessant amount of TV viewing by such people are seeds that become wicked plans.

Salusa
9th Jun 2008, 04:03
As soon as the lunatics know that they can commit their evil deeds unharmed they will proceed. If the guy in Tokyo knew that there is a chance of an armed citizen being on the street he wouldn't have shown up. Plain and simple

So he is mad enough to run around stabbing people but sane enough not to have done so had he known other citizens may be armed?:ugh:

TimmoWhakatane
9th Jun 2008, 04:59
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


haha im reminded of the Family Guy clip where a guy is in the background of the shot wearing a great pair of bear arms (i.e. Arms from a bear) and the lawmakers in the front of shot.

"Dont you think the "right to bear arms" could be misinterpreted?
"Dont be silly, how could anyone misunderstand the right to own a pair of bear arms!"

Anyway- That 'right' is not a universal right....it was decided upon by American lawmakers. It isnt up to you/your country to decide what is best for other countries....(although the US has been doing this a lot lately...with predictable results)

rotaryman
9th Jun 2008, 05:55
Like i said previously " Guns don't kill people " People kill people and we have been doing it since before time................

When the law makers get serious about the punishment handed down to fellons involved in serious crime while armed, then we may see some decline, of course you are never going to stop a mad man/woman hell bent on a killing spree.

:ugh:

The other great saying of course: " when you outlaw guns. Only outlaws will have guns.....

TimmoWhakatane
9th Jun 2008, 06:02
Yeah but I think it is related to ease of killing someone...Lets just say you had two countries exactly the same in every other aspect except: In one country you could kill someone remotely just by pushing a button on a screen and the other country you could only kill them by punching them to death.

Which country do you think it would be easier to kill someone?

Of course that hypothetical situation is a bit extreme but I think access to guns does sit somewhere on that spectrum....pulling a trigger is far 'easier' to do than stabbing someone....one pull. Dead.

troddenmasses
9th Jun 2008, 08:28
When you outlaw guns, only outlaws carry guns...

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"
Adolf Hitler, 1935.

Solid Rust Twotter
9th Jun 2008, 08:55
...only in the US can you be charged with injuring/killing someone while protecting your home with said permit to own...

Try South Africa. Dare to defend your life or property and the full weight of the law will descend on you. You will be treated by the police as a criminal and charged with murder. A friend who was shot in his house by armed intruders managed to return fire and shoot one of them dead. When the police arrived (eventually) they took his 12 year old son aside and tried to coerce him to say his father had shot first. The kid was in tears when they eventually left him alone. As it happened, he was shot and wounded and lying in the passage when his wife brought him his firearm while the intruders went to the garden cottage and shot his brother dead. They returned to the house and saw him in the passage where they tried to shoot him again and he returned fire, chasing them off. The one he killed was found dead in the kitchen where they'd entered via a hole broken through the roof.

This weekend a 35 year old man was killed in a house intrusion four blocks from where I live. It's a daily occurrence here.

The great social experiment has failed.

PanPanYourself
9th Jun 2008, 09:40
I think we need to look at the impact continuous media and movie violence has on many people
Maybe it's just a coincidence but Grand Theft Auto IV was recently released amidst much media hype, and I believe it is expected to gross or has already grossed more than most Hollywood blockbusters. Also important to note, in said game one earns many points for driving over pedestrians and going on a killing rampage. I see an uncanny similarity between what this deranged individual did and that extremely popular video game. Moreover this occured in a popular electronics/video game retail district of Tokyo. Despite these obvious correlations I haven't heard any mention of GTA in the news coverage.

I think if someone is stupid enough to be influenced into mass murder by a video game or movie, then that person should be unceremoniously removed from the gene pool, and his organs should be used to benefit more intelligent members of the human race. Getting rid of the movie/games is not the solution.

Flying Binghi
9th Jun 2008, 09:43
Hmmm.... Adolf Hitler, wasnt he a vegetarian ?

FlyMD
9th Jun 2008, 10:02
..but in some parts of Texas, widows and registered republicans are allowed to carry fragmentation grenades for deterrence.

(Don't know if it's true, but amidst all the made-up-on-the-spot statistics and quotes in this thread, there is no reason my statement should be challenged..)

airborne_artist
9th Jun 2008, 10:15
Murder rate in Japan - 0.5 per 100,000 population.

Murder rate in US - 5.5 per 100,000, and up to 40 /100,000 in some large cities.

I think I'll stick to no guns, thanks. The Japanese seem to have got it right.

Flying Binghi
9th Jun 2008, 10:19
Yes, but where would you prefere to live airborne_artist :hmm:

BlueWolf
9th Jun 2008, 10:21
So...to recap...some suicidal nutcase in Japan knifes a bunch of people on the street, having crashed a truck into them.

Jetblast's resident, numerous, and predictable, Liberal Haters Of America Clan, immediately wade into US gun ownership, and gun laws, as their first response.

Help me here, but I'm struggling with the connection.

Dushan's logic is irrefutable; one citizen armed with a firearm could have taken the guy out and prevented further bloodshed. I'd love to see any of the naysayer camp come up with an argument against this proposition.

...not that I'm suggesting a Proone thread should actually have to stay on track, mind.

Edited to correct "fist" to "first", even though, on reflection, leaving it that way would probably be funnier.

airborne_artist
9th Jun 2008, 10:29
Flying Binghi - never been to Japan, so I can't tell you. Not the USA, certainly. If I had to leave the UK, I'd go to Italy :ok:

Flying Binghi
9th Jun 2008, 10:30
Most astute observation BlueWolf :hmm:


one citizen armed with a firearm could have taken the guy out and prevented further bloodshed

But could a 'Japanese' citizen armed with a gun have taken the guy out ? surely we would need an American citizen :E

FlyMD
9th Jun 2008, 10:32
hmmmm... so 1 guy with a gun would have heard the truck coming, realized what was wrong, and nailed the guy in such a way as to prevent the truck from crashing into the crowd..

Failing that, once the truck had crashed into the crowd, this one guy with a gun would have, of course, immediately realized it was no accident, and shot the guy in the truck before he could pull out a knife...

Failing that, once the nutcase had started stabbing people at random in a crowd, the one guy with a gun could have cooly shot him while making sure he was hitting nobody else in the CROWD :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

You guys have been masturbating to too many Schwarzenegger movies...

Irrefutable logic indeed :E

BlueWolf
9th Jun 2008, 11:33
But could a 'Japanese' citizen armed with a gun have taken the guy out ? surely we would need an American citizen

Now now, be fair, we're talking about a warrior culture here, and one with a long and creditable history as regards firearms. I know you're extracting the urine, but no, a regular and appropriately skilled Jap would suffice.

hmmmm... so 1 guy with a gun would have heard the truck coming, realized what was wrong, and nailed the guy in such a way as to prevent the truck from crashing into the crowd..


No-one has suggested that so far, apart from yourself.

Failing that, once the truck had crashed into the crowd, this one guy with a gun would have, of course, immediately realized it was no accident, and shot the guy in the truck before he could pull out a knife...

Ditto above.


Failing that, once the nutcase had started stabbing people at random in a crowd, the one guy with a gun could have cooly shot him while making sure he was hitting nobody else in the CROWD

Yes, if he was any good. Why, couldn't you do that?

You guys have been masturbating to too many Schwarzenegger movies...

Well, hey, done plenty of tossing in my 41 years, and I think I've even seen an Arnie flick or two. I can, however, quite categorically, assure you that I've never combined the two activities.
What kind of weirdo even comes up with an idea like that? :confused::yuk:

Now then, if you'd be so kind, please refute the logic of this statement:

one citizen armed with a firearm could have taken the guy out and prevented further bloodshed

....waiting....

Scooby Don't
9th Jun 2008, 11:33
The brainwashed minions of liberal, nanny-state UK seem to be in full forece around here. So, since the US is taking the heat, let's have some actual, real facts!!! :eek:

The violent crime rate in the US is LOWER than that in the UK with the exception of the murder rate.

The majority of murders in the US happen in a small number of large cities, most of which also have municipal laws restricting lawful ownership of guns, particularly handguns.

The ONLY state in the US which truly follows the 2nd Amendment is Vermont. In Vermont, there is no need for concealed carry permits, because every resident already has the right to carry a concealed, or non-concealed, handgun. The murder rate in Vermont is lower than 2 per 100,000, about the same as the UK.

Those states which have introduced CCW (concealed carry weapon) permits have reported a DECREASE in violent crime. Essentially, criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear the police.

In those states which issue CCW permits, a background check and training course are required prior to issue. The course is partly designed to teach the basics of defensive shooting, but also teaches the law surrounding armed defence. CCW holders have been proven NOT to be trigger-happy. Had they been, armed crime rates would have increased in the states issuing such permits.


And now for some opinion...

If you want to reduce crime, stop desensitizing kids to violence with horror movies and video games. The US army used techniques which modern video games copy, in order to get a higher percentage of its soldiers firing kill-shots! Why should we allow kids to have the same desensitization training without the training in discipline and responsibility necessary to control violent urges??? :ugh::ugh::ugh: In the US Army's case, less than 25% of soldiers fired to kill in WW2, yet more than 90% did in Vietnam. GTA4 could be having a similar affect.

Also, do all you can to end poverty, disenfranchisement and despair. High employment/low unemployemnt, access to good healthcare and education and hope for the future are all much more powerful means of reducing crime than fiddling around with gun laws.

ZH875
9th Jun 2008, 11:40
Why are these mass killings happening ?

Violent TV and movies come along and suddenly we get a dramatic increase in random mass killings. I wonder if theres a link ?

I don't think so. In the 50's and 60's there were lots of films about WW2, in the 70's everyday the news was about Vietnam, lots of killings and violence, crime was in hand.

The real reason (especially in the UK) is purely down to the namby-pamby fluffy-bunny penal reform people.

Prison is just a holiday between crimes.

Pictures of a New Prison

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/one.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/two.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/three.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/four.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/five.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/six.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/seven.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/eight.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/nine.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/ten.jpg


Prison vs Work
Just in case you ever get these two environments mixed up, this should make things a little bit clearer.

@ PRISON You spend the majority of your time in a 10X10 cell
@ WORK You spend the majority of your time In an 6X6 cubicle /office

@ PRISON You get three meals a day fully paid for
@ WORK You get a break for one meal and you have to pay for it

@ PRISON You get time off for good behavior
@ WORK you get more work for good behavior

@ PRISON The guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you
@ WORK You must often carry a security card and open all the doors for yourself

@ PRISON You can watch TV and play games
@ WORK you could get fired for watching TV and playing games

@ PRISON You get your own toilet
@ WORK you have to share the toilet with some people who pee on the seat

@ PRISON They allow your family and friends to visit
@ WORK You aren't even supposed to speak to your family

@ PRISON All expenses are paid by the taxpayers with no work required
@ WORK You get to pay all your expenses to go to work, and they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners

@ PRISON You spend most of your life inside bars wanting to get out
@ WORK you spend most of your time wanting to get out and go inside bars

@ PRISON You must deal with sadistic wardens
@ WORK They are called managers


If prisons were built and used to give a PUNISHMENT that FITTED the CRIME, maybe, just maybe, crime would reduce. Until then, thanks to Human Rights, Civil Liberties, and a legal system where the magistrates are seeming afraid to jail people for the full terms available, because the government say NO because the jails are full, we are stuck in a system where the criminals have far more rights than the decent law abiding citizens.

FlyMD
9th Jun 2008, 12:07
Bluewolf, the title of this thread, the original statement of Douche-Ann and your so-called "irrefutable logic" was: "One guy with a gun could have prevented this".

I have proceeded to show that 1 guy with a gun could certainly not have prevented the crowd-ramming, and the initial stabbing. As for Picking off a guy out who is in close contact with his victims, actually stabbing them, without collateral damage, in a high-stress situation, it's damnably difficult even for the trained professional. If you don't know that, I suggest you stay away from firearms.

Scooby Don't
9th Jun 2008, 12:13
While ZH875 may have a good point about prison, really just a finishing school for criminals, he is wrong about movies of the 50s and 60s....

When Audie Murphy/John Wayne/Sir Larry Olivier shot someone in a movie, or got shot in a movie, the victim either uttered an "urgh" sound and went down, or grabbed the offending wound and said "the blighter/damned kraut got me!" These days, movies like Saw and Crash show horrific mutilation in gory, and highly believable, detail. Similar detail is shown in video games, except the gamer is often the one causing the mutilation. It is a great deal less of a leap these days from causing on-screen violence to real life violence.

Salusa
9th Jun 2008, 12:15
FlyMD

Your wasting your breath mate.

You are trying to argue logic with someone who believes that nuclear weapon yield is somehow related to "linear time influences":D

Bluwolf said:

The above process is subject to geographical, geological, gravitational, and linear time influences which affect the efficacy of detonation. A number of factors have to be satisfied before spontaneous chain reaction decay will occur. Certain places on the earth's surface have more "windows" where this is possible; Mururoa, Bikini, Arizona, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, are amongst such locations.

Scooby Don't
9th Jun 2008, 12:22
FlyMD, a recent shooting by a policeman in the US was a good illustration of how a person of decent judgement could have ended this rampage, saving at least a few lives.

Two officers attempted to coral an armed man (who had just beaten up his girlfriend, leaving her in hospital) at a parole office down a corridor, away from the office staff and less violent parolees. He happened to be extremely powerful and despite the best efforts of the officers, he managed to draw his (illegally owned) handgun and was bringing it to bear. By this point, the scrum had travelled over 50 feet along the corridor in a matter of a few seconds, so in way did they present a static target. A third officer, actually positioned in case there was an accomplice, stepped into the fray and fired a single shot to the man's head. There is no reason why the same could not have been accomplished in Tokyo. You have shown nothing except your own prejudice.

The shooting, incidentally, was ruled reasonable and lawful.

Dushan
9th Jun 2008, 12:25
FlyMD,

Yes, the title does say prevented, but the statement in the post is clear:

If there was just one armed citizen around many people's lives would have been saved.


The guy stabs 17 people, killing 7. After 2 or 3, if taken out, the carnage would have stopped. I don't know what the sequence of events was, but quite possibly the first 2 or 3 were only wounded, thus all 7 lives would have been saved had Messrs Smith and Wesson been around.

PanPanYourself
9th Jun 2008, 12:40
thus all 7 lives would have been saved had Messrs Smith and Wesson been around.
Unless in the confusion and panic of the moment Mr. Steven Seagal Wannabe missed and shot a bystander who also happened to be armed, then this injured bystander got pissed off, shot back, while another hero from across the street saw two gunmen and tried to save the day... the ensuing firefight killing several dozen people, while the original purp walked away knife in hand. Police arrive on the scene and take out the last men standing.

Bravo :D

FlyMD
9th Jun 2008, 12:42
Scooby don't: I'm not arguing against law enforcement having firearms, on the contrary...

Dushan, If your arguments get any more tenuous, you're gonna end up with the kind of irrefutable logic I spread on my flower beds in spring..

BlueWolf
9th Jun 2008, 12:51
If you don't know that, I suggest you stay away from firearms.

Rest assured, should that time come, I will.

Salusa; no, I shall not argue. You obviously know far more than me. I defer to your greater knowledge and experience. Oh, and by the way, it's "you're", not "your", as in Your wasting your breath mate., but then being way clever, y'all probally new that, aye.

Sorry for being pedantic, but when debating with someone who is, demonstrably, linguistically retarded, it's difficult to avoid the connotation that they may be intellectually retarded as well.

Bluwolf said

um, there's an 'e' in that. Hate to shitpick, but there is.

You are trying to argue logic with someone who believes that nuclear weapon yield is somehow related to "linear time influences"

While you're (your :ugh:) at it, please do explain, from your understanding, how this isn't the case.

No, go on, really do this.

I dare you.

BlueWolf
9th Jun 2008, 12:57
If you don't know that, I suggest you stay away from firearms.

Rest assured, should that time come, I will.

Salusa; no, I shall not argue. You obviously know far more than me. I defer to your greater knowledge and experience. Oh, and by the way, it's "you're", not "your", as in Your wasting your breath mate., but then being way clever, y'all probally new that, aye.

Sorry for being pedantic, but when debating with someone who is, demonstrably, linguistically retarded, it's difficult to avoid the connotation that they may be intellectually retarded as well.

Bluwolf said

um, there's an 'e' in that. Hate to shitpick, but there is.

You are trying to argue logic with someone who believes that nuclear weapon yield is somehow related to "linear time influences"

While you're (your :ugh:) at it, please do explain, from your understanding, how this isn't the case.

No, go on, really do this.

I dare you.

maximus
9th Jun 2008, 12:57
Well, hey, done plenty of tossing in my 41 years


Methinks you must be still doing an inordinate amount of it at the present time :ok:

Salusa
9th Jun 2008, 13:02
Salusa; no, I shall not argue. You obviously know far more than me. I defer to your greater knowledge and experience. Oh, and by the way, it's "you're", not "your", as in

, but then being way clever, y'all probally new that, aye.

Sorry for being pedantic, but when debating with someone who is, demonstrably, linguistically retarded, it's difficult to avoid the connotation that they may be intellectually retarded as well.

Strictly speaking its grammatically retarded but I expect you new that?

E. Mach
9th Jun 2008, 13:09
How ignorant can people be...

read the following article about the low crime in Japan compared to the US where you everybody can carry a gun:

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html

Not always are own culture is the best...

Just my 2 cents

E. Mach

TimmoWhakatane
9th Jun 2008, 13:19
I guess the problem is that people who talk about things that 'could have happened if' tend to concentrate on the best case scenario (oh a guy with a gun would have just taken out all the baddies) and tend to ignore the worst case scenario (yeah a guy who ended up stabbing some people could well have shot a whole lot more but he didnt have easy access to a semi auto weapon)

No one is disputing that people go a bit tropo every once in a while, but when someone does, would you rather they take their anger out on someone with a stick or with a nuclear bomb?

B Sousa
9th Jun 2008, 13:19
Pictures of a New Prison


Very Nice, how much do they rent for?? Better than our crew house.

B Sousa
9th Jun 2008, 13:37
You folks are heartless. Put him in a holding cell until a match is made for Organ Donation, then take what you need and the rest can be recycled........
Decrease Gorebal Warming

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
9th Jun 2008, 13:42
one citizen armed with a firearm could have taken the guy out and prevented further bloodshed but only if he'd held the gun sideways like a proper gangsta

Davaar
9th Jun 2008, 13:46
I am careful not to impute to you more than you wrote, Scooby, but since you mention Audie Murphy's name in the context of shooting, and since it is a long time since WW2, and a long time since Audie Murphy died, and since many who read here were not born at the material times, we should recall that not all of Audie Murphy's shooting was done for the camera. He was the most-decorated US soldier of WW2. His decorations included:

Medal of Honour
Distinguished Service Cross
Legion of Merit
Silver Star
First Oak Leaf Cluster to the Silver Star
Bronze Star
First Oak Leaf Cluster to the Bronze Star
Purple Heart
Croix de Guerre (French)
Croix de Guerre (Belgian)

You also mention Lord Olivier. Though his war record was perhaps less distinguished, he was for a time a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy.

BillHicksRules
9th Jun 2008, 13:48
BW,

Here is one for you then “one citizen could have taken the guy out and prevented further bloodshed” why do they need a gun?

You have maintained that this mythical citizen was sufficiently trained as to not pose a greater threat to others than either themselves or the criminal, so why not have said citizen sufficiently trained in unarmed combat? In a country with such a heritage of martial arts is this not the better scenario.

Since we are engaging in fantasy land fiction how about a citizen highly trained with a poisonous dart fired from a blow-pipe??

Man this is fun now. Here is another, every citizen must have a trained attack dog!!

Your statement is true in so much as it is so vague and general.

Scooby Don’t,

“The violent crime rate in the US is LOWER than that in the UK with the exception of the murder rate”

So what your saying is that the violent crime rate in the UK is lower than that in the US but that in the US you are less likely to survive the attack. And that is a bonus for the US how? Oh I see it now, American criminals do a better job. I guess you got to really want to see the silver lining to that cloud!!

Cheers

BHR

p.s. BW, this only became a thread about US gun laws after Dushan posted!!!

PanPanYourself
9th Jun 2008, 14:00
Strictly speaking its grammatically retarded
Sigh... strictly speaking it's grammatically retarded :ugh:

Flying Binghi
9th Jun 2008, 14:04
From reading the maximum deterent posts, I think some posters are confusing how do you deter common criminals from commiting crimes - compared to how do you stop a mass killer who doesnt think past the act.
The thread starter was about stopping (shooting) a mass killer before he did the deed. (Edit - this originaly posted in the ..."gun would stop killings" thread)

I would argue that we need to identifie why this poor soul felt life was so terrible that he just went on a sensless killing spree... WHY

Why was the killing spree commited in the particular place that it happened ? ... was it a continuous diet of violent movies and violent video games ?

From reading the Japanese (english language) news services, there is a climbing violent crime rate in Japan - things are not as great as some might think.

Scooby Don't
9th Jun 2008, 14:09
Davaar, I was not impuning Mr Murphy in the slightest - simply pointing out that even his own life story, when made into a movie starring himself, did not show depict the sort of gore one sees in more recent movies.

For the record, David Niven fought bravely in the Highland Light Infantry (he was said to be a particularly aggressive officer). James Stewart was a bomber pilot who later attained the rank of Brigadier General in the ANG. Micheal Caine fought in Korea. Kirk Douglas was a WW2 submariner. James Garner was wounded several times in Korea. There are indeed some brave actors, and then there's Harrison Ford who was a conscientious objector during Vietnam...

Going back to the facts, an armed citizenry can and does save lives. The armed crime rate in general, and murder rate in particular, are decreasing in the US as CCW permit issues rise. In Britain, with draconian gun control (with the exception of Northern Ireland, where pistols were never banned and where certain people can obtain CCW rights, and the murder rate is decreasing) is in place, the armed crime and murder rates are increasing.

PanPanYourself
9th Jun 2008, 14:17
Going back to the facts, an armed citizenry can and does save lives. The armed crime rate in general, and murder rate in particular, are decreasing in the US as CCW permit issues rise. In Britain, with draconian gun control (with the exception of Northern Ireland, where pistols were never banned and where certain people can obtain CCW rights, and the murder rate is decreasing) is in place, the armed crime and murder rates are increasing.
How about this little fact:
Norway has the lowest murder rate in the world despite the fact that even the police aren't allowed to carry firearms. Go figure.

Oh, and multiple pre-meditated homicides earn you a maximum "sentence" of twenty years in what is basically a five star holiday village.

There's something very wrong with or very right with this country, I haven't decided which just yet.

corsair
9th Jun 2008, 15:17
I'm not anti gun, never was. The only reason I don't own one is because I would hardly every use it in a sporting sense and I don't need it for self protection in this country.

And that is the crux of the issue here, most of us live in a place where the crime rate doesn't justify a gun for self protection. Those of us who do feel the need for a gun often live in places where crime is a factor.

America is of course a little different. Much of America is peaceful with low crime. Vermont was mentioned. I know Vermont if you want a gun you can have a gun. But in truth the reason Vt is the way it is is nothing to do with guns. It's the people and society in general there. No huge cities, no ghettoes and plenty of work and, some Vermonters say, the cold winters.

So it is with a lot of places all over the world. It's nothing to do with the guns or the lack therof. The Japanese tragedy is just a that a tragedy. A derranged man with a knife. The reason there was no one to stop him with a gun or a knife or even a sharpened stick is that in Japan no one walks around with a defensive weapon because frankly it's never needed 99.9999999% of the time. The people he attacked never expected to be attacked because in their society it's virtually unheard of.

If you feel that you must have a gun on your person or in your house to defend yourself or your family. Then the problem lies in the community you live in or your own paranoia or ego. It's nothing to do with guns.

So debate really should be about the kind of place you live in.

Dushan
9th Jun 2008, 19:50
p.s. BW, this only became a thread about US gun laws after Dushan posted!!!

BHR
This was a separate thread, but the mods decided to merge them....

And no, it is not about US gun laws. It is about a possibility of one armed citizen averting the tragedy.

galaxy flyer
9th Jun 2008, 20:48
What Japan and Norway prove is that crime, especially violent crime, has a lot to do with the culture. State by state, American crime is all over the place. Vermont is low, but not because of its laudable support of the Second Amendment. What do Vermont, Japan and Norway have in common? Looks to me like peaceable, close knit communities who just will not tolerate crime and pass on those traits of citizenship to their offspring. The real violence in America is in the inner cities where drug dealing equals violence, period. Recent documentary showed how teenagers repeatedly are in the emergency rooms with ever more threatening gunshot wounds until they show up dead. Docs there could tell the complete biography of the dead by their scars. They live in a violent world and know no different.

Most Southern states have deplorable rates of violence despite CCW laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry. But violence has always been more "accepted" there.

Point of fact, the lowest incidence of violent crime is among CCW permit holders, even lower than the police! Yes, the possibility of a lawful gun carrying citizen may deter some criminals and stop those committing felonies. Yes, lawful gun ownership seems to cause a drop in violent crime, inferred from the fact crime always escalates in locales where gun ownership has been banned. There are societies with few guns and low crime (Norway and Japan); just as there are societies with lots of guns and low crime (Switzerland and parts of the US). And societies with few guns, but lots of violent crime(England, it seems). And finally, lots of guns and lots of crime, think Somalia. So, there is little correlation between guns and crime, the culture determines the base crime level.

GF

BillHicksRules
9th Jun 2008, 21:57
Dushan,

It is about wanting a gun and stretching for a justification for it, at least be honest about it.

Someone with a broom handle and the desire to use it could have taken this guy out yet you went straight for having a gun.

As someone who in earlier life has been unlucky enough to face off against a knife-wielding thug I can say that what is most important is the presence of mind to deal with the situation not that you are "packing heat".

Your non-military or law-enforcement trained civilian "who likes to shoot for sport" and "carries for self-defence" is in no way trained for the sort of engagement that occured here. Now multiply that incompetence by a factor of 100 for the gun-lovers' wet-dream scenario of almost compulsory civilian gun ownership and carriage, and you turn a bad situation into a horror story where upwards of 100 innocents die.

There is almost no scenario into which the introduction of a scared civilian with a gun constitutes an improvement.

Cheers

BHR

con-pilot
9th Jun 2008, 22:12
Someone with a broom handle and the desire to use it could have taken this guy out yet you went straight for having a gun.

Hum, thought about that for a while BHR, and I decided I would go for the gun option.

I mean if you can get close enough to use a stick, he can probably chop up the stick and you. Even if is a really, really long stick.

Ah yes, reminds me of a "Monty Python" segment about being attacked by a banana. :p

BillHicksRules
9th Jun 2008, 22:32
CP,

By all accounts this nutter had a knife not a sword!! :E:E

He could eventually cut up a broom handle but I would guess you would have to let him have 30 minutes or so with it!!!

As a young slip of a lad I worked for a large supermarket chain over here (Saturday job whilst at Uni) one day a rather irate gentleman a little worse the wear for the previous evening libations came into the store with a bread knife(:ugh::ugh:) demanding satisfaction from the manager who the previous evening had refused to sell him some sweet sherry or the like!! He wandered the store (well staggered) for about 5 minutes before getting lost in a dead end section of the store myself and two mates rushed him, me broom handle in hand, my two mates pushing 6 foot square stock cages. They smacked him against the shelving whilst I stepped forward cracked his knife arm with the length of broom handle and then thump the side of his head with the same!

He, as you can imagine, saw the error of his ways sharpish and try to make a run (fast stagger for it) ditching the knife, at which point the store security guard (who had a night stick) chose to hit him with a chair from behind one of the tills, knocking him cold.

No guns, no fuss, one loser off to jail.

Cheers

BHR

tinpis
9th Jun 2008, 22:58
They will have to prise my Throngun from my cold dead hand.

G-CPTN
9th Jun 2008, 23:22
Shirley, a taser stungun would do the same (and probably more portable than even a broomhandle)?

Scooby Don't
9th Jun 2008, 23:29
Actually Norway has a Home Guard whose members keep their assault rifles at home, and a very active hunting community. They may not be allowed to carry weapons, but they sure can defend their homes.

con-pilot
9th Jun 2008, 23:35
By all accounts this nutter had a knife not a sword!!

Ah shoot (no pun intended, naw, pun intended) I thought he had one of them there Samurai swords. :p

Now all kidding aside there are more than a few cases of where in the case of a knife verus a gun fight a trained knife fighter will win, and not just in Hollywood. There are studied cases of where trained armed police officers had been seriously injured or killed by persons with knives.

If you have ever watched the TV series "Cops", if so you may recall some episodes where a number of armed policemen are trying to disarm a person armed with a knife. You will notice that when the suspect advances toward the police officers the police will back off always trying keeping at least 15 to 20 feet separating them from the knife wielding subject. There is a very good reason for that.

If a person armed with a knife is allowed to get within 10 feet of you there is an excellent chance that they can, with a sudden rush, reach and stab you before you can pull the trigger, unless you are a very experienced officer that has been exposed to such action before. I believe it is called the two step rule; if they can reach you in two or less steps chances are you will be stabbed. In the abbreviated training I attended the instructor reached me twice when he was within 10 feet of me before I could pull the trigger, even though I was expecting it the second time. That my friend will sober you up very quickly. At a distance of 20 feet of more I was able to draw the firearm and fire (well, pull the trigger) every time.

I am very proud of you for fending off the drunk armed with the knife by using a broomstick, sorry handle. However, even you must admit there is a major difference between an "rather irate gentleman a little worse the wear for the previous evening libations came into the store with a bread knife" and a young man in good condition with obvious mental conditions armed with a killing style knife.

I would imagine that if you asked any police officer whether they would to prefer to take on a trained professional knife fighter as compared to a person who is obviously mentally imbalanced they would much prefer the professional.

In my opinon in this case after the first person was stabbed it was time for a gun. Oh, and no warning shots, you shoot to kill.

Take care.

Dushan
10th Jun 2008, 00:57
BHR

It is about wanting a gun and stretching for a justification for it, at least be honest about it.


Card carrying member of NRA and a handgun owner. Several as a matter of fact. Sorry to shoot down your theory.... (pun intended)

galaxy flyer
10th Jun 2008, 02:21
Good and very accurate post-C-P :ok:

I re-read the title-Who needs a GUN? The simple answer-anyone who wants to be able to excercise their inalienable right to self-defense. Oh, don't have that "inalienable" right? So sorry.

BHR-quite the contrary, in the US, rarely does a week go by without some n'er do well get his hash settled by a gun-carrying citizen. Sometimes the crime is merely stopped, sometimes the bad guy gets it, so the courts will not be burdened by their silly defense.

GF

rotaryman
10th Jun 2008, 02:45
UK policeman shot dead during training
A British policeman has been shot dead during a firearms training exercise at a disused warehouse in Manchester, police say.

The police constable, later named as Ian Terry, 32, suffered serious chest injuries and died in hospital.


Greater Manchester Police's Acting Chief Constable Dave Whatton said an investigation had begun into the events surrounding Monday's shooting.

"I can't go into the circumstances of how the officer was killed. But what I can say is that there was no risk at any stage to any members of the public," he told a news conference.

"Nobody else was hurt when the accident happened. There is now a full investigation taking place."

The officer was married and served with the Manchester force as a constable.

The police chief would not say if the officer had been accidentally shot by a colleague or killed by his own weapon.

He also refused to give details of the training exercise.

The focus of the forensic investigation at the site appeared to be four cars, one of which appeared to have its front passenger window smashed and the driver's door open, Press Association reported.

galaxy flyer
10th Jun 2008, 02:57
And, rotaryman, your point is that guns are dangerous? Well, if they weren't, what's the point of carrying them? Reminds of the Texas Ranger who was asked if carrying a Colt 45 Auto with the hammer cocked was dangerous? His response, "I wouldn't carry the son of a bitch if it wasn't".

rotaryman
10th Jun 2008, 03:09
Child shoots herself with grandma's gun
A four-year-old girl in the US has shot herself in the chest after snatching her grandmother's handgun from the woman's purse while riding in a shopping cart at a discount store, authorities say.

A witness, Lueen Homewood, said workers at Sam's Club in Columbia, South Carolina, grabbed first-aid materials from store shelves to help the grandmother as she cradled the wounded child near the store's pharmacy, The (Columbia) State newspaper reported on its website.



The girl was rushed to a hospital in critical condition and was recovering on Monday afternoon after surgery, said police department spokesman Brick Lewis. Hospital officials would not release her condition after the operation.

Lewis said the grandmother, Donna Hutto Williamson, has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The purse containing the small-calibre handgun was in the cart near the child, Lewis said. Williamson, 47, was not immediately charged with a crime.

Officials said the shooting, which was captured on store surveillance cameras, appeared to be accidental.

galaxy flyer:

yes i would say Guns are very dangerous, in the wrong hands of course..:ugh:

BillHicksRules
10th Jun 2008, 08:07
Dushan,


"BHR

Quote:
It is about wanting a gun and stretching for a justification for it, at least be honest about it.

Card carrying member of NRA and a handgun owner. Several as a matter of fact. Sorry to shoot down your theory.... (pun intended)"

How does your owning of a gun shoot down my theory that you want guns?

In fact it actually proves my theory. Just like my ownership of a car proves I want a car!

Logic - learn to love it.

Cheers

BHR

Dushan
10th Jun 2008, 14:17
BHR,

Maybe it is my poor command of the English language, but when someone says to me "it is about you wanting..." I interpret that as "you don't have, but you want to have...".

That's why I replied that I already do, so the theory is shot down.:ok:

Bob Lenahan
10th Jun 2008, 17:04
Rampant crime in Mexico- kidnappings, robberies, "road rage", etc. Just about everyone here either personally knows someone who has been assaulted or has been assaulted himself. Only crimminals have guns here- it's illeagal for citizens to have a gun; obviously no means of protection. Police protection- you gotta be joking.

I believe there has been one murder committed in Swtitzerland since WWII. Every household with an adult male has an automatic weapon. I bet there aren't many burglaries there.
Bob.

FlyMD
10th Jun 2008, 17:10
I believe there has been one murder committed in Swtitzerland since WWII. Every household with an adult male has an automatic weapon. I bet there aren't many burglaries there.
Bob.

Complete and utter [email protected]@cks.. next argument please..

Dushan
10th Jun 2008, 22:45
FlyMD,

Complete and utter [email protected]@cks.. next argument please..

Which one is [email protected]@cks? More than one murder? Not every household? Not adult male? Not automatic weapon?

Davaar
10th Jun 2008, 23:09
I do agree with Galaxy's "societist" analysis, although I think it is also "avoidusingadifferentwordforthesamethingist".

Scooby Don't
10th Jun 2008, 23:22
"Only one murder" in Switzerland is b*llocks, but every household with an adult male does indeed have an automatic rifle and ammunition to go with it. Switzerland has more guns than people; a much higher ownership rate than even the US (Norway also has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US).

The armed crime rate, and violent crime rate in Switzerland is significantly lower than in the UK.

The thing is, when the government trusts the people and the people are worthy of that trust, as in Switzerland, there is no reason not to allow ownership of guns. They are tools, no more capable of good or evil than a screwdriver or a knitting needle. These days, I wouldn't trust the general populace of the UK with unlicenced gun ownership. They are sheep, incapable of accepting true freedom which has been denied them so long. I'd sooner trust an American with a gun, knowing that they won't lionise what is just an object.

con-pilot
10th Jun 2008, 23:34
avoidusingadifferentwordforthesamethingist

I rather like that word (?) I do. :p

FlyMD
11th Jun 2008, 00:17
Scooby Don't: Yes, I have an automatic assault rifle in my home. So far so good. In keeping with directives from the Swiss army, I keep the rifle body and the bolt in separate places, well hidden, so as to avoid accidents. The ammo I have been issued for it is kept in a third place, ensconced in a tin can to avoid damage from humidity.
If I hear a burglar in my house, I call the police and stay put. Call me a wimp if you must, but that's the smart way to go in my book.
The murder rate in Switzerland is relatively low. On average one murder a year is committed with a service weapon.
The suicide rate in Switzerland is relatively high. More than one suicide a year is committed with a service weapon (sorry, don't have that figure).

Just last fall, we had a case of a very disturbed 19 year old coming back from basic training with his equipment and service weapon who felt he just needed to shoot somebody and for some reason ended up shooting a girl at a bus stop dead.

Since then a lot of people have called for the service weapons and ammo to be stored in armories, not in our homes. I think the violence rate will not change much either way, so I don't really care about where I have to store my rifle.

I'm really glad that in my country almost nobody is allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Just the way I feel.

con-pilot
11th Jun 2008, 00:27
Since then a lot of people have called for the service weapons and ammo to be stored in armories, not in our homes. I think the violence rate will not change much either way, so I don't really care about where I have to store my rifle.

I truly hope and pray you would be correct if all service weapons were taken away and stored at a central site. Sadly I feel that you may be wrong with rampant rising crime rate in Europe. Hopefully if the worse were to happen your government would reverse that policy, if indeed the weapons were to be removed from private homes.

FlyMD
11th Jun 2008, 00:33
fair enough, again, con-pilot, but really the point I was trying to make is that the fact there is a rifle in my home does not act as a deterrent for burglars..

On the contrary, since we switched from 9mm to NATO-compatible 7.65, more rifles have been burgled from Swiss homes and ended up a few months later in such nice places as the Kosovo...

Flying Binghi
11th Jun 2008, 03:08
Getting back to the reason for this thread -

I get the impression that some like to think, or are told via various violence loving media outlets, that US citizens owning guns causes these mass killings and that if all these guns disapeared there would be no more of these mass killings :hmm: The latest incident in Japan puts the lie to that thinking...

Who needs a gun... to commit a mass killing ? IMHO, I think we need to look more at the WHY. Does Violent TV, Violent movies and Violent video games indoctrinate some people into becomeing killers ?

The latest reports from the news services -

The National Police Agency is considering regulating the possession of double-edged knives like the one used in Sunday's street stabbings in Tokyo's Akihabara electronics shopping district, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.
Currently, possessing a double-edged knife is not a crime.

There were 4,677 illegal knife violations in 2007, an increase of 1,336 from 2002.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20080611TDY02304.htm

The MPD on Tuesday announced the results of postmortem examinations on seven victims of Sunday's attack. The results show four people died from knife wounds, while the other three victims died from injuries sustained after being hit by the truck Kato used in the attack, the MPD said.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20080611TDY02306.htm

TimmoWhakatane
11th Jun 2008, 06:26
To give you the answer you are looking for: no body NEEDS a gun to commit a mass murder.....just as I dont NEED hands to eat a meal or I dont NEED round wheels for my car....

.....they do make it easier though :ok:

It should be about finding the balance between making it hard for illegitimate users to obtain guns while still making it possible for legitimate users to have them.

rotaryman
11th Jun 2008, 07:45
Give me a CZ85 any day::ok:

BillHicksRules
11th Jun 2008, 08:13
Dushan,

"Maybe it is my poor command of the English language, but when someone says to me "it is about you wanting..." I interpret that as "you don't have, but you want to have...".

That's why I replied that I already do, so the theory is shot down"

Well I cannot legislate for you reading what is not there.

As for shooting down theories, it is much easier for you when you put up both sides of the argument.

In future can I ask that you address what I say. It is rather annoying when, having taken time to carefully decide what I want to say, you then respond to that which you wished I had said.

It shows a disconcerting level of discourteousness.

Cheers

BHR

Dushan
11th Jun 2008, 13:34
BHR,
I was always thought that communication is a two way street. It is not a requirement for just one side to understand, the sending party needs to make sure he can be understood.

Tailor your communication to the audience, if you will.

You are dealing with an ESL-er, so cut out the complicated sentences like "It shows an disconcerting level of discourteousness." There is too much "dis-ing" in it. And isn't it "a disconcerting"?

BillHicksRules
11th Jun 2008, 23:03
Dushan,

The writer, as an artiste, cannot be beholden to those who will behold his work. He simply must be true to the art. :E:E

"Tailor your communication to the audience, if you will."

That is a dangerous request to make. There are many on here who I would therefore only be able to communicate with through the use of pictures!!!:E:E

Cheers

BHR

Flying Binghi
12th Jun 2008, 00:42
I was always thought that communication is a two way street

Dushan, I suppose if you had multiple call signs in this forum, you could have a public thought discusion with yourself :hmm:

rotaryman
12th Jun 2008, 03:30
You guys should should sort it out in the street at high Noon...:ok:

corsair
12th Jun 2008, 12:00
I bet there aren't many burglaries there.

Interesting having a gun in the house can have the opposite effect. Here in Ireland after a few legal challenges. Gun owners won the right to 'bear' hand guns and larger calibre rifles again. As a result you can go to my local gun shop and order a Glock 17 (699 Euro) or whatever. www.shoot.ie.

One of the biggest objections to having handguns from the Police was the simple fact that gun owners were often targetted by criminals for burglary to get the gun and they produced lots of examples of guns being stolen and ending up in being used in murders and robberies. So far from deterring burglars it encourages them. Naturally of course they usually waited until the owner was out.

This is true everywhere, including America. Most gun owners have a gun cabinet. Here the Police insist on a gun cabinet and a monitored alarm. Of course that doesn't stop you sleeping with the Glock under the pillow if you're paranoid enough.

But for the most part the gun is better off locked away from children and burglars.

Dushan
12th Jun 2008, 12:39
One of the biggest objections to having handguns from the Police was the simple fact that gun owners were often targetted by criminals for burglary to get the gun

This may be true in jurisdictions that allow ownership, but insist on "safe" storage such as having a trigger lock, unloaded, with ammo being locked in a separate container. IOW a long time to get ready to fire. Those jurisdictions usually consider the use of a firearm in self defence, even if legally owned, a criminal act. There is a case, in UK, where a farmer shot at a burglar, and ended up in jail himself.

I think it was BenThere who gave us an example of his neighborhood being safe because a lot of people in it own guns.

BlueWolf
12th Jun 2008, 12:49
Not allowed to have handguns here - at least not in any practical sense. You can own a handgun if you belong to a proper Pistol Club, and you have the appropriate licence, which is difficult and expensive to obtain, and you can use your handgun on their registered range (but nowhere else), and transport it between your home and the aforementioned range so long as you have the requisite level of security at home, otherwise it must reside at the range.

Long guns, different story. A regular 'A' category licence allows you to own and use any number of rifles and shotguns, inc. semis.

An 'E' cat allows you to own and use any number of restricted weapons (pistols not included), ie Military Style Semi-Autos, etc.

Handguns have never sat particularly comfortably with me. If they were generally legal, I would certainly own a few, just because.

Shotguns I own, and use, because they're useful tools.

Rifles I own and use because they feel right. A rifle sits happily in my grasp. I have used them since I was about eight.

Ain't never commited a crime with any firearm. Ain't never felt so inclined.

Guess it's people whut commit gun crime, not guns.

Eh.

Scooby Don't
12th Jun 2008, 18:25
I wonder if it's worth pointing out to BHR that he has his dead hero all wrong? Bill Hicks was not a namby-pamby liberal in the Scottish left-wing mold (and this would be the same Scotland that propped up every Conservative government from 1950 - 1970 in defiance of a Labour-voting England...).

Bill Hicks was a libertarian!!! He believed in free availability of hard drugs, harder porn (especially the lesbian stuff, so I guess he was alright :E) and pretty much everything else that left-leaning types would sooner ban. Being a Texan good ole' boy, you can bet your life he had no problem with the Elvis Presley style of TV remote - that's a Thompson submachine gun. Elvis got through a lot of TVs.

BillHicksRules
12th Jun 2008, 20:48
Scooby,

Where does one start with you?

Xenophobia, political ignorance and political naivete all in just 7 sentences.

Since you have no understanding of any of the political terms you have used in this last post it is not really worth trying to use facts and logic to counter.

Suffice to say, you are wrong. I could go into how this is the case but as I said above you would not understand so I will simply save the bandwidth.

Cheers

BHR

Scooby Don't
13th Jun 2008, 00:14
Edited to remove a naughty word...
Since I'm Scottish, I am not guilty of xenophobia.
Since I have a politics degree, I'm certainly not guilty of misunderstanding terminology.
Since I can back my point up with facts, I'm not wrong (unlike BHR).

Bill Hicks was a funny man, and a clever man. You sir, BHR, are NO BILL HICKS. Were he alive today, I seriously doubt he would ever say "you wouldn't understand" in a pathetic and weasely attempt to avoid losing an argument.

In 1945, 40.3% of the Scottish electorate voted Conservative.
In 1950, 44.8%
In 1951, 48.6%
In 1955, 50.1%
In 1959, 47.2%
In 1964, 40.6%

galaxy flyer
13th Jun 2008, 02:15
Since Billy Hicks rules, BHR would you care to explain your political philosophy and how it relates to Billy Hicks? I suspect many would not be comfortable with a real libertarian, self-governing political regime, hell, most Americans are begging for the government tit to suck from.

GF

corsair
15th Jun 2008, 12:27
Those jurisdictions usually consider the use of a firearm in self defence, even if legally owned, a criminal act. There is a case, in UK, where a farmer shot at a burglar, and ended up in jail himself.

That may be the UK. But it created a storm of protest in favour of the farmer and the defence of your home.

Here in Ireland in a very similar situation, an isolated farm, possible robbers from the 'traveller' community. The farmer shot one dead. He was duly convicted of manslaughter amid a storm of protest. Eventually in a re-trial he was freed by a jury to everyone's general satisfaction except the travellers who complained that it was now 'open season' on them. (About time:E).

The facts of the case were interesting though. The farmer, with a single barrelled shotgun shot the man. Then followed the wounded man as he trying to get away beating him twenty times with a stick, breaking his arm in the process, finally reloading the gun and finished him off. This, the second jury decided was legitimate self defence.

I think a precedent has been set!

BillHicksRules
16th Jun 2008, 11:32
Scooby,

"Since I'm Scottish, I am not guilty of xenophobia."

Self-hatred then or just a general dislike of those from your homeland that do not share your beliefs?

"Since I have a politics degree, I'm certainly not guilty of misunderstanding terminology."

All evidence to the contrary of course.

"Bill Hicks was a funny man, and a clever man. You sir, BHR, are NO BILL HICKS."

Never claimed to be. I am happy to be only half of what Mr Hicks was. I will work on the funny for the future though.

"In 1945, 40.3% of the Scottish electorate voted Conservative.
In 1950, 44.8%
In 1951, 48.6%
In 1955, 50.1%
In 1959, 47.2%
In 1964, 40.6%"

And your point is? In your previous post you mentioned that Scots voted "in defiance of a Labour-voting England" I was always of the belief that you were/are allowed to vote how you so desire. Is that not the case for Scots?

GF,

If you wish to pigeon hole me as one thing or another then go ahead, I will not hold you back.

Unlike many on here who have a "philosphy" I am one of those small-number of individuals who prefer to look at each issue based on the facts rather than use their "philosophy" to make up their mind and then search for facts to support that decision. However, each to their own. There are far more people that use the latter format, especially in here.

With regards to my relationship with Bill Hicks all I will say is that we agree on more than we disagree and on those things we disagree about I respect his opinion.

I have no need to completely agree with someone to respect them or their position.

There are many in here who I have great respect for yet rarely agree with them, for example, Con-Pilot and West Coast to name but two. We usually find ourselves on opposing sides of discussions yet I respect them as individuals.

Cheers

BHR

Scooby Don't
16th Jun 2008, 15:33
BHR, I was quite happy to respect your opinion, though I disagreed with it, and to respect you, until you started mudslinging like an arrogant and misinformed pr*ck.

Scooby Don't
16th Jun 2008, 16:12
BHR, I was quite happy to respect your opinion, though I disagreed with it, and to respect you, until you started mudslinging like an arrogant and misinformed pr*ck.

BillHicksRules
16th Jun 2008, 23:02
Scooby,

I am not so arrogant that I feel the need to post the same post twice just because no one replied the first time. :ok::ok:

Cheers

BHR

galaxy flyer
16th Jun 2008, 23:05
More than fair enough for me. But, without a coherent philosophy to apply to the facts can lead in all sorts of odd directions. The philosophy is a compass and the "facts" are what I see out the window, if you will.


GF

Flying Binghi
17th Jun 2008, 00:02
Looks like I have to move my post, again :hmm:

Dont want to leave it in the middle of... ? whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the thread starter subject.



A recent small step....

Extracts via http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...410143,00.html (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3410143,00.html)


The upper house of the German parliament voted to tighten rules on the sales of violent computer games and films to minors on Friday, June 13, by providing guidelines on stricter labeling.

The move has been a response to school rampages in Emsdetten and Erfurt in which the perpetrators of the shooting sprees were apparently influenced by the violent computer game “Counter Strike”.


IMHO the Germans understand why mindless violent influences should be controlled. I wonder if Japan shall take note....

Scooby Don't
17th Jun 2008, 13:12
Actually I posted twice because the server was in slo-mo and I hit refresh.

Anyhoo, well done the German parliament.

BillHicksRules
17th Jun 2008, 14:37
Scooby,

That is a hell of a slow PC if it takes 30 mins to refresh a web-page!:):}:ok:

Cheers

BHR

p.s. Yes well done the German government in enacting useless but nonetheless headline grabbing legislation.

Scooby Don't
17th Jun 2008, 17:01
I think you'll find it was the slow Pprune server, there being a thread on the very issue in this forum. My PC is a racing snake!

And here's the edit. If all the Germans are doing is adding warning lables, it'll have about as much effect as the health warnings on cigarettes, i.e. none at all. If it helps to make parents actually think a little, and prevent their little darlings from spending their college funds on violent games, then it may help a little. The trouble is, the sort of parents who care enough to prevent their children from becoming desensitized thugs who decide to kill for the thrill/fame/hell of it, are not the parents that need to be reached. Now there's an idea.... Instead of licensing guns, licence parenting!!! Include recurrent training in the licensing scheme too. The benefits to society would go far beyond a lessening of violent crime. And yes, I know it would be unworkable and besides, for some reason best known to themselves, the same types who wish to ban everything of which they disapprove would also be first to champion reproduction as a universal right.

Flying Binghi
24th Jun 2008, 15:30
Japanese police on Tuesday arrested a 77-year-old man suspected of killing his entire family with a hammer, including a 4-year-old granddaughter

Full article at -

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_GEN_JAPAN_FAMILY_KILLINGS_ASOL-?SITE=YOMIURI&SECTION=HOSTED_ASIA&TEMPLATE=ap_national.html

FakePilot
24th Jun 2008, 15:45
FB,

That 77 year old probably didn't play Counterstrike. Besides, I don't think there is a hammer in Counterstrike.

Although if you want a chuckle imagine a hammer used by "operators"

corsair
24th Jun 2008, 17:09
Aha, Counterstrike that's the reason for all those killings. It used to be TV then videos. They always go for the easy explanation. Video games cause violent behaviour. Ok, problem solved: ban violent games.

One wonders then where all the killing and violence came from before TV, Video, computer games etc. Even rock music was blamed at one stage. Could WW2 perhaps be blamed on all those cowboy films? What about WW1, war novels perhaps?

Perhaps the real answer is that violence is inherent in our nature. Mostly suppressed but sometimes it all comes out at the most inappropriate times.

Did any of these people perhaps consider whether the killers were drawn to a game because they had violent tendencies and wanted a way to fulfil it. These games sell in millions. Are we to think that all players are potential killers? I played a few RPGs game myself. There is great satisfaction in taking out an enemy with a sniper rifle from a long way out or lobbing a grenade into a room full of enemies and splattering them on the walls. Would I like to do it in real life? Eh no! Too dangerous.

We are a violent species. Any history book will confirm that.

Flying Binghi
25th Jun 2008, 11:47
corsair and FakePilot, as far as I am aware, there is no background offered as yet as to why the hammer attack occured. You both offer interesting reactions though :hmm:

Salusa
25th Jun 2008, 14:31
That 77 year old probably didn't play Counterstrike. Besides, I don't think there is a hammer in Counterstrike.

Maybe he played GTA instead, or was that a baseball bat?

In other news today:

BBC NEWS | Americas | US factory worker in gun rampage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7472963.stm)

Flying Binghi
26th Jun 2008, 11:16
Soooo.... Salusa, do you think the gun caused the factory worker to loose the plot ? :hmm:

BlueWolf
26th Jun 2008, 11:21
We are a violent species. Any history book will confirm that.

I like you, Mr. corsair. ;)

Perhaps there is much which is similar in terms of the perception of reality, between small peaceful nations such as ours, and large warlike ones, such as the one which many folk here appear to get grumpy with at every given opportunity.

Faith.

:ok:

Salusa
26th Jun 2008, 14:40
Soooo.... Salusa, do you think the gun caused the factory worker to loose the plot ? :hmm:


Eh? Where did I infer that?

Dushan
26th Jun 2008, 15:23
Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

Eboy
26th Jun 2008, 16:38
DC is about to become a safer city.

“Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we’re free at last.”

FakePilot
26th Jun 2008, 16:48
Gloat! Gloat! Gloat! :)

Seriously, for all you anti-gun people, I think this may be an opportunity to get good gun control laws without the looming threat of confiscation. Hopefully this will make it easier for both sides to work together to make sure guns stay out of the hands of criminals/insane while allowing law-abiding people the right to own, well, pretty much anything.

brickhistory
26th Jun 2008, 19:39
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.


:D:ok::);):p:cool:

oh, and




:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:

Flying Binghi
27th Jun 2008, 00:02
Quote:
Soooo.... Salusa, do you think the gun caused the factory worker to loose the plot ? :hmm:
Eh? Where did I infer that?

Its a question Salusa :)

Peter Fanelli
27th Jun 2008, 01:48
Seriously, for all you anti-gun people, I think this may be an opportunity to get good gun control laws without the looming threat of confiscation. Hopefully this will make it easier for both sides to work together to make sure guns stay out of the hands of criminals/insane while allowing law-abiding people the right to own, well, pretty much anything.


Ummmm, nope.
You will never get guns out of the hands of criminals.

As for the decision today, excellent news.

Now if the damn British contingent will just get off our backs about guns! :E

con-pilot
27th Jun 2008, 02:25
Now if the damn British contingent will just get off our backs about guns!

Nope, they never will you know, jealousy. :p


(Except for Mr. Draper, he knows wot's right he does. :ok:)

AMF
27th Jun 2008, 07:19
I recall not long ago on a similar thread, the anti-gun, mostly-foreign contingent was asserting to those of us here we were just plain wrong and unenlightened when we tried to explain that the Constitutional right of "the People to keep and bear arms" was an a priori, individual's right, and that a "free state" meant a state of freedom.....not a "free State", as in one of the United States or the country itself....

Looks like the US Supreme Court, charged with interpreting the Constitution, just schooled those who didn't do their homework before bleating-on about what our Bill of Rights/Constitution says.

Al Fakhem
27th Jun 2008, 07:39
I grew up in a country with conscription. Thus, the average male is trained to kill without use of a gun or knife - the right movement to your opponent´s throat will do. Makes all this airport security stuff surrounding minute blades and nail clippers look really stupid.:ugh:

Scooby Don't
27th Jun 2008, 08:14
PF, AMF and con-p, it ain't ALL the Brits you know! Some of us actually question the PC orthodoxy of the era. Admittedly, there are many who don't. :mad:

That orthodoxy seems to be the following:

Bashing radical Islam is racist - bashing even mainstream Christianity is just a bit of fun and those Jesus freaks should get a sense of humour.

Guns are bad, and only bad people, possibly child molesters, desire guns.

People who drive gas-guzzling 4wd vehicles are antisocial, possibly psychotic, and need to be educated with painted slogans on their vehicles and the occasional slashed Goodyear.

Freedom of speech does not extend to anyone who wishes to speak ill of radical Islam, vegetarianism or homosexuality, or to anyone who wishes to speak in favour of Christianity, the hunting of animals or traditional definitions of marriage.


What I believe is a little different:

Freedom of speech is just what is says - some people will say abhorent things but unless they're actually inciting violence, they have a right to their beliefs, however abhorent, to the expression of those beliefs. People of all faiths need to realise that if they wish to live in the west, they must accept the right of others to speak ill of their faith and its principle icons.

I don't really have an issue with gay marriage in the sense of legal protection for same-sex unions. I also dislike any discrimination in access to jobs or public services, whether based on sexual preference, race or religious beliefs. Still, marriage is traditionally a religious rite, and expecting a religion to alter its core tenets to fit modern ideals is just plain silly.

Freedom of choice is at the core of western values, and that includes the freedom to drive a big-ass V8 4x4.

Guns have no intrinsic quality of good or evil. They are simply tools. Since most people are law-abiding (except for speed of driving...), and government should govern by consent of the people, the people should be trusted by the government. If the government won't trust me with a gun, why should I trust them with an army?

Sunray Minor
27th Jun 2008, 12:46
Scooby,

All well and good, but when the gun-buyer infringes on my right to wake up alive tomorrow then you have to accept rights are not absolute.

If Americans want to own guns and use them to kill themselves and each other with greater abandon than the rest of the world, so be it. That is your soverign right to decide. Likewise if you want to execute prisoners, oppose landmine and cluster bomb bans or develop the worlds largest nuclear arsenal, go ahead.

However, you should be willing to accept some criticism from outsiders for this, either out of their concern for your welfare or their own. Given the propensity of the US to impose its ideas of what is right and wrong on other nations, the least you can expect back are a few pointers on where your own policies that lead to dissproportionate deaths might be a little wayward.

Scooby Don't
27th Jun 2008, 14:30
Sunray minor (is that 2ic?), this is where trust comes in. As it happens, I owned a my first shotgun, legally, at the age of 15 in the UK. I never used it to infringe on your rights or anyone else's. By the time I left the UK in my 30s, I had 2 shotguns and 2 rifles, and still had never used them in any unlawful way.

Given that there used to be over a million shotgun certificate holders in the UK (probably more like 800,000 now) and a quarter million firearm certificate holders (until 1997, at least 50,000 of those owned pistols), with some overlap between the two groups obviously, it's pretty clear that as a group, this 2% of the UK population were unusually good at not infringing on the rights of others. Much more trustworthy, in fact, than the 20 million car drivers or perhaps 50 million (not counting toddlers after all!) knife owners.

In the US, the majority of the 25,000 or so murder victims each year are themselves criminals. Despite what you may have heard there are places where handguns are very hard to come by, and there are people who are forbidden to have them, and a large proportion of those murders are committed using illegally-owned weapons. Even in the US though, there is a much higher rate of death due to medical malpractice per 10,000 doctors than death due to any means per 10,000 guns.

Given the choice between a bit more safety, or at least the perception of it which all you get from UK politicians, and a bit more liberty, I'll take the liberty and you can keep the change.

Dushan
27th Jun 2008, 14:34
All well and good, but when the gun-buyer infringes on my right to wake up alive tomorrow then you have to accept rights are not absolute.


Why would a gun-buyer infringe on your right to wake up alive? Why is it that a gun-buyer is automatically labelled a lunatic, just because he does not fit in your idea of what one should, or should not, own.

AMF
28th Jun 2008, 17:29
Sunray Minor ...However, you should be willing to accept some criticism from outsiders for this, either out of their concern for your welfare or their own. Given the propensity of the US to impose its ideas of what is right and wrong on other nations, the least you can expect back are a few pointers on where your own policies that lead to dissproportionate deaths might be a little wayward.

Sunray, you seriously can't be sitting in London of all places and bemoan "the propensity of the US to impose it's ideas of what is right and wrong on other nations,...".

Refresh my memory; in how many places outside GB was the Union Jack planted over the years? How many countries were "created" when European Powers divided up the world while sitting around tables thousands of miles away, drawing lines on maps? How much of today's strife, particularily in the Middle East and Africa, can in large part be traced back to these not-so-long-ago divisions? I stand ready with a globe and some tiny, little Union Jack stickpins....a lot of them.

But I suppose when you call a foreign land your own under the guise of a "colony", the first thing you do is collect and seize and much locally-owned weaponry as you can. Recognizing the newly-aquired subjects' Individual Right to keep and bear arms wouldn't make much sense if you want to hang on to it. Tea prices would skyrocket, taxes couldn't be collected by the Royal Governers, and "colonists" wouldn't be there to be looked down upon by anyone in the Mother Country in order to let them feel superior. My my, we can't have that can we?

Anyway, the question as to how likely Americans accept the "advice" from certain sources regarding the concept of Individual Rights and limits of State power was answered 230+ years ago.

But by all means keep trying. It humors us and gives those genetically-inclined to feel superior and outlet.

Flying Binghi
2nd Jul 2008, 14:25
Yet more people NOT killed by guns, but the violent media have to include a reference to the guns that wer'nt there :hmm:

This unforetunate incident happened in China -

On Tuesday, a 28-year-old unemployed man stormed a police station in Shanghai and started attacking officers with a knife ...Six of them were fatally wounded.

...Violent crime is rare in China, where private gun ownership is virtually banned, although there have been scattered cases of revenge attacks.

Full article at -
Another police officer dies from knife attack in Shanghai, upping death toll to 6 - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/02/news/China-Knife-Attack.php)