water cannon

[baronWastelan]

let us know how that works out for y'all

http://www.senortuna.com/pics/data/500/katrina_067.jpg

[Skoshi Tiger]

I'd expect folk would be mighty polite to each other in that neighbourhood. As they should be!

[Sternjaeger II]

the good ol' "keeping peace by means of a superior firepower" ;)

You know what, I lived here in the UK for some years now, and I still can't get my head around the obstinate "guns are evil!" policy: the result is that people aren't safe in their homes and that events like the ones of the last days go out of control.

Besides, all this coming from one of the countries which constructed their empire with the use of guns is a bit silly :rolleyes:

I have a nice collection of WW2 and WW1 guns, but left them all in custody in Italy, since it's a massive ballache to bring em here..

[McFeckit]

I was born and bred in the UK and have only ever seen one gun in my life, a Magnum as it happens, which I loaded using a spring loader. Once it was loaded the rather simple mechanical device took on a whole new meaning. It was rather scary to be holding a device that could blow someone's head off with a simple click.

I for one am very happy with the UK's no guns policy and have never felt unprotected whatsoever. If you need to kill someone then do it online. And if you feel you 'might' need to kill someone then move country.

Tuppence anyone ?

[CharveL]

So as long as the criminals play by your standards and rules then everyone will be safe and happy!

[Querer]

I'd expect folk would be mighty polite to each other in that neighbourhood. As they should be!

And if not, they get shot and most probably killed. Welcome to the 21st century... :rolleyes: Fits the rest (debts, infrastructure, social support, scholar system and and and...).

[Sternjaeger II]

yeah, I think people fail to understand that the sense of protection they're given by their home walls is just an illusion. What happened in London and other UK cities was just a mild teaser of what would happen in case of massive riots, caused by anything out of the ordinary.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen to the all British "we know it better" attitude the day shit really hits the fan and they find themselves on the wrong end of a 12".. :rolleyes:

[unreasonable]

A "we know better" attitude is hardly confined to the British!

The point is that if everyone is allowed to have a gun, then it rapidly becomes necessary for everyone to have one, as an arms race between criminals and citizens sets in. While if no-one has one, this is a common good. I agree that it makes burglary more common - but it also reduces the lethality of muggings.

There is also the accident rate to consider - I am too lazy to look it up but I would make a wager that the rate of deaths by accidental shooting in the US is higher than the UK's entire murder rate, whether inflicted with gun, knife or horrible food (eg the "Great British Sausage").

I would prefer to live in a society free of handguns and assault rifles, (although I am quite familiar with their use), but I recognize that this is not a realistic option for the USA given the NRA and the sheer number of guns in circulation.

[Skoshi Tiger]

It was rather scary to be holding a device that could blow someone's head off with a simple click.
...
Tuppence anyone ?

Whats the old saying 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

Maybe the scaryness was a reflection of your own soul? A deep down fear that all that hate and anger from being put down for all those years would rise to the surface and you wouldn't be able to control your self...and now in your very hands you had the means to take revenge?

....

No wait a minute! That was me! ;)

Only joking, seriously, If you swapped the guns for cricket bats, you could take that photo anywhere in the UK or Australia and you'ld see a regular bunch of fun loving blokes coming to gether in an expression of their community spirt. I don't know the background for the above photo, could be after Katrina? Any way at least they've got a sense of humor.

Cheers!

[Sternjaeger II]

A "we know better" attitude is hardly confined to the British!

tis true, but they invented it ;)



The point is that if everyone is allowed to have a gun, then it rapidly becomes necessary for everyone to have one, as an arms race between criminals and citizens sets in. While if no-one has one, this is a common good. I agree that it makes burglary more common - but it also reduces the lethality of muggings.

erm, yeah, that in a ideal society, where criminals are abiding the law (?). The truth is that criminals still will find ways of having firearms, so the government only disarms law abiding citizens, not criminals. That's an old bogus thinking which I've heard ad nauseam..

There have recently been changes to our laws here, now if you kill an intruder in your property, unless it's evident he/she was fleeing, you won't be charged with murder.


There is also the accident rate to consider - I am too lazy to look it up but I would make a wager that the rate of deaths by accidental shooting in the US is higher than the UK's entire murder rate, whether inflicted with gun, knife or horrible food (eg the "Great British Sausage").


yeah, and a tenth of the population of the USA? :rolleyes:


I would prefer to live in a society free of handguns and assault rifles, (although I am quite familiar with their use), but I recognize that this is not a realistic option for the USA given the NRA and the sheer number of guns in circulation.

I am very familiar with the use of firearms, and I can tell you about other societies where firearms control was introduced for the "greater good": Nazi Germany, Ceaucescu's Romania, Franco's Spain and many other happy regimes..


Mind you, in the UK there is no complete ban, you can have bolt action rifles, rimfire semiautos and muzzle loaders, not to mention smooth bore guns, but it's the demonisation of firearms that is plain ridiculous. You need to think about ultimate protection for yourself and your family, cos there won't be anybody answering your 999 call (which is 666 upside down!) when the zombie apocalypse comes ;)

[nearmiss]

Guns never kill people - it's the biological protoplasm that pulls the trigger.

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/monkey_gun.jpg
(http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/monkey_gun.jpg)

[Kongo-Otto]

I am very familiar with the use of firearms, and I can tell you about other societies where firearms control was introduced for the "greater good": Nazi Germany, Ceaucescu's Romania, Franco's Spain and many other happy regimes..


I do't know who told you that crap, but not even the Nazis had a hard Firearms Control law (for Pistols and Rifles, full automatic weapons never had been legal in Germany). The first Firearms control came with the Allies in 1945 when ownership was absolutley prohibited and in 1948 when the Federal Rebublic of Germany was founded, the Allied Firearms Policy was taken as Federal law by the new German Government, that was the Deal for getting back limited sovereignty.

The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns**, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded.
Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions.
Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons.
This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

**= which ment a maximum for owned Handguns except for historical collections)

[Sternjaeger II]

lol unfortunately it's not the first time I see a monkey with a Glock ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

I do't know who told you that crap, but not even the Nazis had a Firearms Control law (for Pistols and Rifles, full automatic weapons never had been legal in Germany). The first Firearms control came with the Allies in 1945 when ownership was absolutley prohibited and in 1948 when the Federal Rebublic of Germany was founded, the Allied Firearms Policy was taken as Federal law by the new German Government, that was the Deal for getting back limited sovereignty.

*cough cough*

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

sorry, I should have specified that Jews were forbidden from owning and making firearms and ammunition..

[Lixma]

I am very familiar with the use of firearms, and I can tell you about other societies where firearms control was introduced for the "greater good": Nazi Germany, Ceaucescu's Romania, Franco's Spain and many other happy regimes...
Oh, well played.

Alex Jones much?

[Lixma]

Sternjaeger, you are advocating the free(ish) sale of guns in my country. As a concerned citizen I would need some information before deciding. I have a question.

Will the UK's crime rate go up, down or be un-affected by gun ownership?

[Kongo-Otto]

*cough cough*

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

sorry, I should have specified that Jews were forbidden from owning and making firearms and ammunition..

In that dark days Jewish Germans were forbidden for many more things, even the use of Public Parks.
I was in Auschwitz a few years ago, i think everbody nows the Rooms were the Hair and the suitcases are shown to the public, but there is also a little pot full with Iron Crosses, from jewish German WW1 Veterans. There also is this room with artifical arms and legs, maybe some of them is from jewish ww1 vets.
You get your leg shut off at Verdun, just to end in Auschwitz a few years later. It's just....

[Sternjaeger II]

Oh, well played.

Alex Jones much?

who's Alex Jones? :confused:

Sternjaeger, you are advocating the free(ish) sale of guns in my country. As a concerned citizen I would need some information before deciding. I have a question.

Will the UK's crime rate go up, down or be un-affected by gun ownership?

Lixma, it's already there, you're free to go buy a firearm in your country, provided you can produce a gun license when you buy it. This is what I mean, there is deliberate confusion and disinformation on the matter.

The crime rate won't be affected, since criminals already have a gun. So do hunters, collectors and skeet shooters, but it's not like there's a stand-off everyday, is there? It's about the way licenses are given.

I have a question for you: how many people die of a car accident every year in this country? Shall we ban the use of cars then?


Uh and let me give you another example: you remember the shooting man in Wales not so long ago? The maniac that was driving around and shooting at people from his car? He could have been stopped instead of letting him go on the loose for 3 and a half hours if the police cars behind him had armed police officers in it. Don't you think that if the rest of the world has armed police officers and we don't, and then that kind of stuff happens, maybe it's time to reconsider things?

[Sternjaeger II]

In that dark days Jewish Germans were forbidden for many more things, even the use of Public Parks.
I was in Auschwitz a few years ago, i think everbody nows the Rooms were the Hair and the suitcases are shown to the public, but there is also a little pot full with Iron Crosses, from jewish German WW1 Veterans. There also is this room with artifical arms and legs, maybe some of them is from jewish ww1 vets.
You get your leg shut off at Verdun, just to end in Auschwitz a few years later. It's just....

...horrible, I know. But this happened also because of gun control. You remember what happened in the Warsaw ghetto when they managed to get their hands on weapons, right?

We look at WW2 and other conflicts with a distant and detached attitude, but the ultimate right to defend yourself should never be taken off you. It's about freedom, and making sure it's respected.

[Lixma]

The crime rate won't be affected.

So they aren't much good at preventing crime.

Uh and let me give you another example: you remember the shooting man in Wales not so long ago? The maniac that was driving around and shooting at people from his car? He could have been stopped instead of letting him go on the loose for 3 and a half hours if the police cars behind him had armed police officers in it. Don't you think that if the rest of the world has armed police officers and we don't, and then that kind of stuff happens, maybe it's time to reconsider things?

Arming the police and allowing the public access to firearms are separate arguments. I'll let the police decide.

[Sternjaeger II]

So they aren't much good at preventing crime.


yes they are, it just has nothing to do with criminals, since they already have firearms. What did they find on the scum that was killed by the police in London?


Arming the police and allowing the public access to firearms are separate arguments. I'll let the police decide.

I agree, and firearms are already accessible by the public, albeit in a restricted form.

[Vengeanze]

Hehe, mention firearms to an american and he screams "second amendment" and starts singing the anthem. :grin:

Gun homicide per 100,000 population:
USA 3.98
Canada 0.4
England/Wales 0.15

Have fun doing what you're doing while we here in Sweden have intercourse with bikiniteams and polarbears. :grin:

[Lixma]

Will the UK's crime rate go up, down or be un-affected by gun ownership?

The crime rate won't be affected.

So they aren't much good at preventing crime.

Yes they are.

:-P

[Sternjaeger II]

:-P

erm,I believe you misinterpreted what I meant.. It won't affect crime because criminals already have guns.. do I seriously have to explain this bit again? :confused:

[Lixma]

You can't simultaneously hold the positions that :-

A) Gun ownership prevents crime.

and....

B) Crime rates in the UK will be unaffected by public ownership of firearms.

If gun ownership prevents crime then all things being equal the the crime rate should come down after its introduction.

But if, as you said, the crime rate will remain un-affected then in what tangible sense has gun ownership prevented crime?

[ATAG_Doc]

I never understand people who really believe that taking guns from law abiding people would make a safer place where no one will be hurt by crime. They have way too much dependency on institutions to live and eat.

Muggings without guns mean less lethal? That's hilarious. The point is less muggings not less chance of losing life due to lead poisoning.

Just ask yourself if you were very very hungry and just had to eat and you have two people and you had to roll one of the for cash to afford to eat.

One holding a gun in his right hand and foaming at the mouth, smiling, laughing in such a such a way his belly fat jiggles and he is winking at you, licking his lips, blows a kiss your way and he's holding one hundred dollars cash in his left hand and the other subject is just holding the cash, which would you choose?

Just answer that to yourself because anyone with common sense knows that answer.

[Rattlehead]

If people want to own guns, that's their business. Personally, I don't want the responsibility of owning a firearm.
Touch wood, so far I have never been in a bad situation where having one would have been convenient.

[Vengeanze]

I never understand people who really believe that taking guns from law abiding people would make a safer place where no one will be hurt by crime. They have way too much dependency on institutions to live and eat.
Checking the stats I must admit there are other countries who have higher killrates by firearms than the US...like Colombia, Albania and the Phillipines. :-D
By the way, what's the requirements to legally buy a gun in the US? Clean record or? And can I take my gun with me to the pub for a pint with friends?

[ATAG_Doc]

Checking the stats I must admit there are other countries who have higher killrates by firearms than the US...like Colombia, Albania and the Phillipines. :-D
By the way, what's the requirements to legally buy a gun in the US? Clean record or? And can I take my gun with me to the pub for a pint with friends?

I purchase from gun shows locally here in Texas now and then. They have them every month. When I have done so you just decide what you want and they make you fill out this paperwork and you have to have proper ID of course. Wait for about 15 minutes while you're background is being checked - usually buying ammo or reloading supplies during this wait. Then they'll call your cell phone to tell you that you're approved and give you receipt and your gun and that's it. You have to 18 or over and a clean criminal background.

Taking it into bar is not allowed. State law provides that any business can forbid carrying of a firearm on their property. They display this sign iat the entrance of the establishment.
http://www.hammerle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gun-laws-attorney-north-texas-300x225.jpg

However a business owner can pack heat all he wants to in his own business and even wear it visible. Many pawn shops have all their people working there packing heat. They never have anything happen in them bad.
http://store02.prostores.com/hurricanesigns/catalog/z911_thumb.jpg
I feel safest in these places.

Trust me when I tell you this because I've lived here my entire life. Everyone I know and I mean EVERYONE I know owns and or carries a gun on them all the time. Guns are not rare they're every where.

[DayGlow]

A "we know better" attitude is hardly confined to the British!

The point is that if everyone is allowed to have a gun, then it rapidly becomes necessary for everyone to have one, as an arms race between criminals and citizens sets in. While if no-one has one, this is a common good. I agree that it makes burglary more common - but it also reduces the lethality of muggings.

There is also the accident rate to consider - I am too lazy to look it up but I would make a wager that the rate of deaths by accidental shooting in the US is higher than the UK's entire murder rate, whether inflicted with gun, knife or horrible food (eg the "Great British Sausage").

I would prefer to live in a society free of handguns and assault rifles, (although I am quite familiar with their use), but I recognize that this is not a realistic option for the USA given the NRA and the sheer number of guns in circulation.


And the death rate from automobiles is astronomically higher than either stat, so wouldn't be more prudent to get rid of cars because thy statistically kill a lot more people than any other weapon?

[Das Attorney]

lol at expanding gun ownership in Britain. Too many drunks here for that to be a good idea!

What do I need a gun for anyway? There's no wolves or bears here last time I looked. If it's against crims in my house then I'd rather knock them out with a chair leg or something instead of shooting them. Better that than think 'murderer' every time I look in the mirror afterward.

I was caught up in a shooting in Greenford once though. It wasn't much fun and I was glad to get out of there pronto. I don't think having a shooter would have helped the situation at all.

It just raises the stakes too much. I have no problem with other people in other countries carrying guns. Not here thanks though!

[Targ]

A "we know better" attitude is hardly confined to the British!

The point is that if everyone is allowed to have a gun, then it rapidly becomes necessary for everyone to have one, as an arms race between criminals and citizens sets in. While if no-one has one, this is a common good. I agree that it makes burglary more common - but it also reduces the lethality of muggings.

There is also the accident rate to consider - I am too lazy to look it up but I would make a wager that the rate of deaths by accidental shooting in the US is higher than the UK's entire murder rate, whether inflicted with gun, knife or horrible food (eg the "Great British Sausage").

I would prefer to live in a society free of handguns and assault rifles, (although I am quite familiar with their use), but I recognize that this is not a realistic option for the USA given the NRA and the sheer number of guns in circulation.

Arms race?

I dont think so.

Criminals go for the low hanging fruit and much prefer robbing old ladies and the helpless.

[Sternjaeger II]

You can't simultaneously hold the positions that :-

A) Gun ownership prevents crime.

and....

B) Crime rates in the UK will be unaffected by public ownership of firearms.

If gun ownership prevents crime then all things being equal the the crime rate should come down after its introduction.

But if, as you said, the crime rate will remain un-affected then in what tangible sense has gun ownership prevented crime?

I have never said that gun ownership prevents crime, I just like firearms and want to be free to use them.

Let me give you an example: I can legally own a bolt action rifle (modern or vintage), but NOT a semiauto one. What's the difference? I'm still gonna be able to kill with a bolt action rifle.. it's the legislation that is ridiculous, not people's opinion on it.

I frankly don't care what people think of firearms, men that don't like em never shot one probably, but again, it's not my problem, I know I like going to the range and use my ww2 rifles, period. Some people go fishing, some others dress up like women, I like firearms. If then having one in the house would allow me for self defence, well I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

You lot have a very distorted vision of owning firearms me thinks..

[Das Attorney]

ILet me give you an example: I can legally own a bolt action rifle (modern or vintage), but NOT a semiauto one. What's the difference? I'm still gonna be able to kill with a bolt action rifle.. it's the legislation that is ridiculous, not people's opinion on it.


That legislation was bought in after the Hungerford massacre. As you may remember, Michael Ryan had a semi automatic rifle (an AK I think) and used it very efficiently.

The idea was to limit the damage one individual could do with a weapon. Slower rate of fire = less kills per unit of time etc

[ATAG_Doc]

And the death rate from automobiles is astronomically higher than either stat, so wouldn't be more prudent to get rid of cars because thy statistically kill a lot more people than any other weapon?

No we need to ban the one common denominator in these problems. Humans. We should just ban humans. Check out the stats for alcohol related drunk driving accidents that resulted in death in Texas. Couldn't find the last couple of years but nevertheless.

1982 4,213
1983 3,823
1984 3,912
1985 3,678
1986 3,567
1987 3,260
1988 3,392
1989 3,370
1990 3,250
1991 3,078
1992 3,059
1993 3,043
1994 3,187
1995 3,183
1996 3,742
1997 3,513
1998 3,586
1999 3,522
2000 3,779
2001 3,736
2002 3,823
2003 3,675
2004 3,583
2005 3,504
2006 3,466
2007 3,363
2008 3,382

[ATAG_Doc]

lol at expanding gun ownership in Britain. Too many drunks here for that to be a good idea!

What do I need a gun for anyway? There's no wolves or bears here last time I looked. If it's against crims in my house then I'd rather knock them out with a chair leg or something instead of shooting them. Better that than think 'murderer' every time I look in the mirror afterward.

I was caught up in a shooting in Greenford once though. It wasn't much fun and I was glad to get out of there pronto. I don't think having a shooter would have helped the situation at all.

It just raises the stakes too much. I have no problem with other people in other countries carrying guns. Not here thanks though!

But is it not cheaper to eliminate these individuals from living among us peaceful people than to break an expensive handmade antique 14th century Louis V mahogany chair over their head and have to be fed and supported in a penal facility by you and the tax payers? Get your calculator out and do the math I can reload that one round for about a buck 05 vs what the cost for the expensive antique chair plus years of free rent / food / healthcare.

And unless I am the one being shot at I am not getting involved unless I am pretty sure that I know what is going on and I have as greater chance that the outcome will produce a win for me vs a win for them. This is a flight sim you do essentially the thing. You size up your opponent. You follow and stalk and wait for the right moment and go in for the shot. Same thing. You don't go blazing into battle with a unloaded or empty gun unless you're really trying to entertain the subscribers of the Darwin awards email newsletter.

[Sternjaeger II]

That legislation was bought in after the Hungerford massacre. As you may remember, Michael Ryan had a semi automatic rifle (an AK I think) and used it very efficiently.

The idea was to limit the damage one individual could do with a weapon. Slower rate of fire = less kills per unit of time etc

...erm, you can buy a semiauto rimfire .22 CAR15 in the UK... it's just an obstinate political thing..

you forgot the Cumbria shooter and his 12 killed and 23 wounded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

wake up, people..

[Vengeanze]

I purchase from gun shows locally here in Texas now and then. They have them every month. When I have done so you just decide what you want and they make you fill out this paperwork and you have to have proper ID of course. Wait for about 15 minutes while you're background is being checked - usually buying ammo or reloading supplies during this wait. Then they'll call your cell phone to tell you that you're approved and give you receipt and your gun and that's it. You have to 18 or over and a clean criminal background.

Like buying a cell phone over here. Horrible but guess it's about culture. I'm not judging anyone but hope we'll never go that route over here.

[apparition]

Big dogs and booby traps forget the guns.

[Vengeanze]

Big dogs and booby traps forget the guns.

...or clone my wife and equip every home with one.

http://fleshymeninpolyester.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ugly-woman4.jpg

[Das Attorney]

...erm, you can buy a semiauto rimfire .22 CAR15 in the UK... it's just an obstinate political thing..

you forgot the Cumbria shooter and his 12 killed and 23 wounded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

wake up, people..

I know about the rimfire's still being available. As you know, they are significantly less powerful than a centrefire gun, hence still being legal.

As for Cumbria, that was because of police incompetence. If they had got their act together, they could have stopped him earlier. I wasn't disputing the fact that the legislation is crap though - just pointing out why it is the way it is.

Don't get me wrong. I like target shooting, but the laws are there for good reason (normally because a minority ruin it for everyone else). Right or wrong, we just have to accept it. :(

[ATAG_Doc]

Like buying a cell phone over here. Horrible but guess it's about culture. I'm not judging anyone but hope we'll never go that route over here.

Honestly I like it this way. I mean were we can and you can't. I will defend your right to keep them out of the hands of all your citizens.

[ruggbutt]

I know about the rimfire's still being available. As you know, they are significantly less powerful than a centrefire gun
It's all about shot placement. Lotta survivors of .44 mag who took one in the arm or leg but no survivors of those that took a .22 rimfire between the eyes.

[Das Attorney]

too true!

[MD_Titus]

yeah, I think people fail to understand that the sense of protection they're given by their home walls is just an illusion. What happened in London and other UK cities was just a mild teaser of what would happen in case of massive riots, caused by anything out of the ordinary.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen to the all British "we know it better" attitude the day shit really hits the fan and they find themselves on the wrong end of a 12".. :rolleyes:

then a lot of the rioters could have been equally armed.

would've been carnage.

so far one guy was shot dead (gang related apparently) thsoe three blokes that got hit by a car and a couple of bystanders (not rioters or police) have gotten a kicking.

[MD_Titus]

yes they are, it just has nothing to do with criminals, since they already have firearms. What did they find on the scum that was killed by the police in London?

I agree, and firearms are already accessible by the public, albeit in a restricted form.

hang on.

the criminals have guns, yes, a lot are reactivated firearms or eastern european. but it's the bullets that they find in short supply. rounds go for £50-100+ each. they tend to just shoot each other because it's difficult and expensive to get rounds for anything other than settling scores or sorting territory.

second, it appears and according to the IPCC, that the guy who got shot hadn't fired at police, and reports suggest it was still in his sock when they shot him. if he is brandishing the thing then fine - danger to life is obvious. if not the police ballsed it up. not helped by a bunch of them battering a 16 year old girl on the floor outside the station when the family turn up wanting to know what happened.

[Ploughman]

Nice thread.

Car = transport. Not a weapon.

Gun = Weapon. A weapon.

SternjagerII left his guns in Italy but wants to shoot guns = GO BACK TO ITALY.

We sorted?

Really, it's that simple. This is the UK, we don't do guns. Perhaps one day you'll be dancing on our national grave saying "I told you so" but I don't think so. If you want to own and shoot an arsenal of guns there's loads of places to do it, just not here. If you came here loving guns and are upset you don't get to go full-auto, it's this simple.

Leave.

The exits are clearly marked.

Go.

[baronWastelan]

would've been carnage

and would've ended in 1 day, but perhaps you prefer the alternative which is for the UK to be bled to death slowly?

[Ploughman]

and would've ended in 1 day, but perhaps you prefer the alternative which is for the UK to be bled to death slowly?

Four dead ( is that how many the cops shot to death without reason on that bridge in New Orleans?), probably 2,000 going through the courts, about £100 million of damage, a national debate, some macro-economic and social changes. Hardly being bled to death slowly is it? And while we're at it this was exsclusively English rather than a UK event.

[Skoshi Tiger]

. Some people go fishing, some others dress up like women, I like firearms. If then having one in the house would allow me for self defence, well I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

There are also people who like to go fishing with firearms while dressed in womens clothing! which would be actually illegal in Australia.

At least in my state taking fish with a firearm or even carrying it on your boat, or discharging it over open water is illegal.

Some laws are just plain silly and are designed to repress our self expression on our journey to enlightenment!

[baronWastelan]

Four dead ( is that how many the cops shot to death without reason on that bridge in New Orleans?), probably 2,000 going through the courts, about £100 million of damage, a national debate, some macro-economic and social changes. Hardly being bled to death slowly is it? And while we're at it this was exsclusively English rather than a UK event.

Classic "frog placed in pot of cold water on the stove". The water is just starting to get warm. Relax and enjoy the spa.

[unreasonable]

Well I will eat my hat! :o

From NRA-ILA website (must be accurate, right?):

"The firearm accident death rate is*at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904."

Meanwhile across the Pond...

Most recent murder rate UK = 1.28 per 100,000 pop (2009)

Actually until sometime in the seventies, I would have been right, but the gun accident rate has kept on dropping fast. Credit due to better gun design, improved safety awareness or stricter gun controls, take your pick.

Personally I do not believe that the level of crime in total is related to gun ownership - there are countries with high gun ownership levels and low crime rates (Switzerland), high guns + high crime (US), low guns + high crime (UK), and low guns +low crime (Japan?).

But the expression of crime in terms of gun related murder does seem to correlate with gun ownership - hence is my arms race argument, which is a classic prisoners' dilemma problem where the optimum solution can only be achieved through the use of an outside arbitrator, ie the state.

The overall crime rate is clearly a cultural matter: not primarily economic, as the left-liberals claim, although demographics and the business cycle clearly have an incremental effect.

Meanwhile the way in which yanks and limeys talk past each other on this issue is also cultural, and down to the different ways in which each views the role of the state.

Yanks, at least of the Red State variety, view liberty as something that is threatened by a strong state. With a weak state they feel free - to keep slaves, massacre red indians, invade Mexico etc ;)

Guns are a totem of this freedom. Hence the rather silly arguments about how we are all doomed to end up under Nazi rule unless we have the right to bear arms. (Which ignores the fact that the Weimar republic fell because it did not control a monopoly of force, not because citizens were disempowered by gun laws).

For the British a strong centralized state has historically been the source of rights and freedoms. The main threat to liberty the individual faced was not from the sovereign, but from ruthless and greedy oligarchs, whether the traditional landed aristocracy or rapacious industrialists. The state, through the mechanisms of the Crown Courts, ameliorated the depredations of the locally powerful.

Indeed the recent riots in England can be seen as parallel to the American Revolution:

- A section of the population feels that it lives long way away from the centre of power.

- They believe that the forces of the state are biased against them and give them insufficient "respect".

- The state has been attempting to prevent them from victimizing other subjects (albeit with little success).

- When they are required to contribute to the finances of the state from which they have been major beneficiaries they claim they are over taxed and under represented.

- When some spark ignite the flames a few opportunists organize the rest through the social media of the day and start an insurrection.

- Rival militias form.

- While the forces of the crown struggle to reimpose order the politicians leap at an opportunity to settle old scores....

- Civil war?

[Kongo-Otto]

...horrible, I know. But this happened also because of gun control. You remember what happened in the Warsaw ghetto when they managed to get their hands on weapons, right?

We look at WW2 and other conflicts with a distant and detached attitude, but the ultimate right to defend yourself should never be taken off you. It's about freedom, and making sure it's respected.

Yes i do, but then it was too late. The Major Problem in germany and maybe the whole world, was that the Nazis were underestimated. Big Mistake.

Yes i'm with you in this point. I have a Firearms License which includes the right to concealed carring a gun which is pretty hard to get here in germany right now and if something similar will happen in germany as it happens right now in London and elswhere, i will defend my self by all means and if necessary that will include the use of Deadly Force.
But that will not happen, because most of them looters are cowards, when they see a gun, they go elsewhere to loot.
But if necessary i will not hesitate and take actions depending on the level of Threat.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Yes i do, but then it was too late. The Major Problem in germany and maybe the whole world, was that the Nazis were underestimated. Big Mistake.

Yes i'm with you in this point. I have a Firearms License which includes the right to concealed carring a gun which is pretty hard to get here in germany right now and if something similar will happen in germany as it happens right now in London and elswhere, i will defend my self by all means and if necessary that will include the use of Deadly Force.
But that will not happen, because most of them looters are cowards, when they see a gun, they go elsewhere to loot.
But if necessary i will not hesitate and take actions depending on the level of Threat.

Which takes us in a big loop back to the original post and the photo.

By putting up the sign and not concealing their firearms (most visible had holsters on their hips) they are actually putting out a fairly strong message and therefore avoiding violence and anti-social behavior.

Cheers!

[Sternjaeger II]

Nice thread.

Car = transport. Not a weapon.

Gun = Weapon. A weapon.

SternjagerII left his guns in Italy but wants to shoot guns = GO BACK TO ITALY.

We sorted?

Really, it's that simple. This is the UK, we don't do guns. Perhaps one day you'll be dancing on our national grave saying "I told you so" but I don't think so. If you want to own and shoot an arsenal of guns there's loads of places to do it, just not here. If you came here loving guns and are upset you don't get to go full-auto, it's this simple.

Leave.

The exits are clearly marked.

Go.

Uhmmmm a very refined thinking,did u write it yourself or got help from the BNP?

You completely missed the point of what I was saying,whenever mentioning firearms some people here get their knickers in a twist. What you don't seem to understand that apart for most semi-autos and pistols you can have other firearms in this country,it's the attitude of public opinion and the lack of armed police officers that I find ridiculous.

You think firearms should be used against firearms,but it's not the case.

What leaves me utterly amazed is that the police here behaves like Dad's Army, whenever they screw up (Cumbria, riots) their answer is "we didn't expect that".. seriously?! You're a police force,you need to be able to deliver an ultimate strength service wherever necessary on the spot,not sit and look people commit crimes. A swifter and more decisive intervention in Bidmingham could have saved the lives of those guys.

[Sternjaeger II]

hang on.

the criminals have guns, yes, a lot are reactivated firearms or eastern european. but it's the bullets that they find in short supply. rounds go for £50-100+ each. they tend to just shoot each other because it's difficult and expensive to get rounds for anything other than settling scores or sorting territory.

second, it appears and according to the IPCC, that the guy who got shot hadn't fired at police, and reports suggest it was still in his sock when they shot him. if he is brandishing the thing then fine - danger to life is obvious. if not the police ballsed it up. not helped by a bunch of them battering a 16 year old girl on the floor outside the station when the family turn up wanting to know what happened.

The ones with reactivated guns are petty criminals,I'm talking about the real ones,do you really think there's no stacks of assault rifles from former eastern block arsenals? Smuggling stuff in this country is still incredibly easy,get a ferry to the continent and see how many controls you go through,I was shocked the first time I crossed the Channel: NO control whatsoever,no police presence,nothing!

[Sternjaeger II]

you know what, I find it frankly disturbing that in front of such massive police fails people still believe they can be protected by them. People love digging their heads in the sand here, hoping that it's never gonna happen to them.

I've heard conversation where some pride themselves with the fact that there is no need for brutal police force here..in a village in Devon though..

It's this obstinate attitude that causes what happened with the riots, if police is not a lethal threat, people will simply ignore them.

And yes, there's insurances and what not to repay the damage, but for some of the damage there's no compensation that will fill the void.

Do you really think that in the end, once this is over, the minority of people which will be charged with some offence will actually make things better? This lot had nothing to lose..

[Lixma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred, and property damages topped roughly $1 billion. In all, 53 people died during the riots and thousands more were injured.

If only the police were armed none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait...

[Lixma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots

Property damage: 8,973 vehicles (Not including buildings)
Monetary damage: Estimated at €200 Million.
Arrests: 2,888
Deaths: 2
Police and firefighters injured: 126

If only the French pulled their head out of the sand and armed their police none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait....

[Querer]

The problem which most of the people arguing for freedom regarding owning a gun or not is that they usually forget that there are tons of people around, which should definitely not be able to carry a gun around and NOT being criminal. Of course, us, normally behaving and at least average intelligent human beings, can discuss this matter being pro or against. Silly things with laws (however stupid they are...) is: they have to be the same for everybody. And I absolutely not want my choleric neighbour, who tends to get angry by every little thing bothering him, to carry a gun around. And I am absolutely sure that he has a clean record and no (obvious) mental disorder. That's the way it is, all other arguments are picked.

First, you should stop bringing up over and over again examples of massacres. Even now in Norway, things like this are usually rare events compared to the amount of gun homicides, which happen on a daily basis in the US. This comparison is ridiculous, as such things can happen even with the tightest control of guns, but they will also continue to happen if everybody is carrying a gun (as the maniac is usually ready to die).

Second: how many times did you actually miss a gun in your hands? I guess, that 99% of the people desperatly begging for free firearms have never been in a situation where they would have real drawbacks with NO gun in their hands.

Third, don't forget that you can destroy someones life even without killing him, usually the high numbers of injuries are not taken in account in the statistics...

Fourth: in a working society, there is simply not 100% freedom possible, forget about that. So there is NO right to carry around a gun, that is ridiculuous thinking of about 200 years ago...

Fifth: comparing cars and guns is on an intellectual niveau I usually do not further comment. People dying in cars=accident. People dying by guns=controlled, conscious action. Even you admit, that its not the gun killing people, but the one at the trigger. Same is true for cars, so argument even further invalid...

I think, "unreasonable" is right, criminal rate is a cultural matter. Of course, you would feel more safe with a gun at home, if some looters want to rob your stuff out of your house. But come one, how many times happens this in your life? And don't you think, there would be more intelligent ways to avoid looters robbing your house than just by sitting in there armed like hell? This is so shortsighted thinking that I stop commenting any further here...

[Sternjaeger II]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

If only the police were armed none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots

If only the French pulled their head out of the sand and armed their police none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait....

yeah, truth is that those were real riots, whereas what happened here was mainly looting. Things could have gone way out of hand in those two contexts if there was no armed police forces.

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane), again because you weren't affected directly by it. Truth is that police couldnt do its job properly because they're untrained and unarmed, which defies the concept of policing.

Yes, if you're a citizen brought up with certain moral standards this is the kind of policing you will need, but when such a huge component of your society is made by people that don't give a toss about anything and have nothing to lose, you have these phenomena happening in an alarming copycat chain.

I for one care about and respect the society I live in and will do what I can to protect it and my household, and know that police forces unfortunately can't be everywhere all the time.

Firearms are not just meant for defence, they have other uses, believe it or not, but fortunately I am given the possibility to choose and have them, what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

All I can hope for is that you will never find yourself in a position when you might really do with one, cos it's not gonna be fun..

[Sternjaeger II]

Fifth: comparing cars and guns is on an intellectual niveau I usually do not further comment. People dying in cars=accident. People dying by guns=controlled, conscious action. Even you admit, that its not the gun killing people, but the one at the trigger. Same is true for cars, so argument even further invalid...


I'm sorry but that's a gross generalisation.
The truth is that a car is a commodity that very few people would give up on. That's the only difference. Cars and the oil we need to run them make waaaay much more damage than owning firearms, but again, who would give up on such comfort? It's the hypocrisy of modern society..

[Lixma]

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane), again because you weren't affected directly by it.

Wow.

[Lixma]

I'm sorry but that's a gross generalisation...
Yes, if you're a citizen brought up with certain moral standards this is the kind of policing you will need, but when such a huge component of your society is made by people that don't give a toss about anything and have nothing to lose, you have these phenomena happening in an alarming copycat chain.

Firearms are not just meant for defence, they have other uses, believe it or not, but fortunately I am given the possibility to choose and have them, what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

You are awesome.

[Sternjaeger II]

You are awesome.

I don't get your point.

[ruggbutt]

You just don't see those kinds of riots in Arizona where I live. During the L.A. riots some of the so-called black leaders were trying to get people stirred up here to riot. The thing is, we're all armed. In '92 I was carrying openly in a holster as is in accordance with the law. I also was a CCW instructor so I could carry concealed if I wanted to. Either way, the riots didn't happen here and continue to not happen here because the prevailing attitude is live and let live. Unless you're destroying my property or intend to harm. The law here allows a whole bunch of really neat stuff to happen should you decide to become a hoodlum. I've held car theives at gun point for the police. They thanked me. A buddy had a gun stolen and it was hidden in a business warehouse. He reported it stolen. We staked out the place and they came back to get it. The perps were looking down the barrel of my scoped AR-15 when they came out w/the stolen gun. The cops showed up, thanked us for holding the theives and moved on.

An armed society is a polite society. I shot 3 gun combat matches professionally for years and years. I've seen disagreements and I've seen some harsh words exchanged. Never did one person decide that the firearm was the answer to the argument. Whether that person had true respect for the weapon or whether he didn't wanna get smoked by the rest of the armed people present is something only that person can answer. In '95 my team shot 4th in the Soldier of Fortune world championships. Closest law enforcement or military team was 7th. The top 5 were sponsored civilian teams. In those days I was still a professional musician so my hair was long, down to my waist. I was the only competitor with long hair. Even got some smart alec comments from some of the other shooters. Till I shot. They were polite after that. It's hard to explain the dynamic between people when everyone is armed but it's one that I prefer. People for the most part are more polite. Like a normal human being should be. There's no childish screaming or someone being a jerk cuz they've had a bad day. Below is a shot from that match, on the shotgun stage. #4 buckshot or better were the loads we were required to carry. No birdshot.

http://iplaster.net/rugg/sof95a.jpg

I feel completely comfortable around others that are armed. I'm not intimidated in the least by someone carrying. In some ways, I believe that natural selection would work much better in a society where everyone was armed. Those that were too stupid (or rude) to get a clue wouldn't last long and society would be better off for it.

[ATAG_Doc]

The problem which most of the people arguing for freedom regarding owning a gun or not is that they usually forget that there are tons of people around, which should definitely not be able to carry a gun around and NOT being criminal. Of course, us, normally behaving and at least average intelligent human beings, can discuss this matter being pro or against. Silly things with laws (however stupid they are...) is: they have to be the same for everybody. And I absolutely not want my choleric neighbour, who tends to get angry by every little thing bothering him, to carry a gun around. And I am absolutely sure that he has a clean record and no (obvious) mental disorder. That's the way it is, all other arguments are picked.

First, you should stop bringing up over and over again examples of massacres. Even now in Norway, things like this are usually rare events compared to the amount of gun homicides, which happen on a daily basis in the US. This comparison is ridiculous, as such things can happen even with the tightest control of guns, but they will also continue to happen if everybody is carrying a gun (as the maniac is usually ready to die).

Second: how many times did you actually miss a gun in your hands? I guess, that 99% of the people desperatly begging for free firearms have never been in a situation where they would have real drawbacks with NO gun in their hands.

Third, don't forget that you can destroy someones life even without killing him, usually the high numbers of injuries are not taken in account in the statistics...

Fourth: in a working society, there is simply not 100% freedom possible, forget about that. So there is NO right to carry around a gun, that is ridiculuous thinking of about 200 years ago...

Fifth: comparing cars and guns is on an intellectual niveau I usually do not further comment. People dying in cars=accident. People dying by guns=controlled, conscious action. Even you admit, that its not the gun killing people, but the one at the trigger. Same is true for cars, so argument even further invalid...

I think, "unreasonable" is right, criminal rate is a cultural matter. Of course, you would feel more safe with a gun at home, if some looters want to rob your stuff out of your house. But come one, how many times happens this in your life? And don't you think, there would be more intelligent ways to avoid looters robbing your house than just by sitting in there armed like hell? This is so shortsighted thinking that I stop commenting any further here...

Speak for yourself I am always armed. Always. In my vehicle. On my person. On my property. In my home. I have several. They are all loaded. That is the safest way to keep them. Most of the meat I consume I shot myself. I have a freezer full of it and what I cannot consume I donate to organization that feed people. But I rarely buy meat since I have a ton already. I've won a chili cook off 2 years in a row (the only 2 I entered) using deer.

[nearmiss]

Does anyone think that the Eastern Block countries, East Germany, Romania, etc. would have put up with the Russia communist oppression for over 50 years if they'd have had guns? They would have tried to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the people in Somalia "today" would be under the oppression of the war lords, if the general population had access to guns?
They would try to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the oppression in Darfur would be going on if the persecuted people had guns? They would try to do something to resist.

When people are empowered with the will resist, or they have guns and guts, they can make oppressors seek easier prey.

Guns are harmless, they are just metal objects like cars, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. You can kill someone with any of the three in the hands of the wrong person.

Guns can be a tool of dubious value of course against government oppression.

When Russia was at war with Afghanistan they had the big helicopter gun ships with the extremely fast "guns". The Russians could wipe out an entire village with one 4 second fly by. The Afghans were helpless with their handguns against such weapons and a well equipped enemy. America gave the Afghans the SAM, RPG. The Afghans began to knock down those gunships. This was a war too costly to continue for Russia, they loaded up and left.

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation. Guns are not an end all solution to oppresive or aggressive governments. Guns can enable the people to resist and make subjugation of those people very difficult for aggressors.

[Sternjaeger II]

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation.

well mate, if/when the s**t really hits the fan, I doubt you'll save yourself with sophisms..

[Sternjaeger II]

+ 1000 to ruggbutt


you can actually see it in the arrogance and patronising attitude of their posts.. the conception and tolerance for others' ideas and principles is quite a random one here..

[ATAG_Doc]

Does anyone think that the Eastern Block countries, East Germany, Romania, etc. would have put up with the Russia communist oppression for over 50 years if they'd have had guns? They would have tried to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the people in Somalia "today" would be under the oppression of the war lords, if the general population had access to guns?
They would try to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the oppression in Darfur would be going on if the persecuted people had guns? They would try to do something to resist.

When people are empowered with the will resist, or they have guns and guts, they can make oppressors seek easier prey.

Guns are harmless, they are just metal objects like cars, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. You can kill someone with any of the three in the hands of the wrong person.

Guns can be a tool of dubious value of course against government oppression.

When Russia was at war with Afghanistan they had the big helicopter gun ships with the extremely fast "guns". The Russians could wipe out an entire village with one 4 second fly by. The Afghans were helpless with their handguns against such weapons and a well equipped enemy. America gave the Afghans the SAM, RPG. The Afghans began to knock down those gunships. This was a war too costly to continue for Russia, they loaded up and left.

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation.

That my friend is the reason you have the 2nd amendment in America. Perhaps the world doesn't understand that the Constitution in America does not state what the government will do for you or it's obligation towards its people. It is a charter of negative liberties against the government to restrain it. And specifically the 2nd amendment is not there to prevent authorities from not allowing people to own guns. Read this next part very carefully. It is there to prevent the government from turning on its people and changing it into any other system that the people do not authorize. It is a written threat and a promise that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not for sport. Not for coolness. But to CONTROL GOVERNMENT. Not the body itself. But the once in a while socialist that gets out of hand. We get torches and pitchforks first then elections and then the 2nd amendment remedy is there.

[nearmiss]

well mate, if/when the s**t really hits the fan, I doubt you'll save yourself with sophisms..

When it comes to shove back I think consideration of your adversary is important. If you are getting shot at....

I'd say IED and handguns can do a world of hurt as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One thing about a gun, if you pull a gun on someone bluffing time is over. You shoot the dude, unless he becomes a whimpering mass of obsequious jelly.

I don't have much use for guns in daily life, but I do own many. It is really not good sense to discuss your gun ownership in most countries. The governments are very frightened of their own populations, look at London, Greece, Ireland... no sense going on about it. People all over the world are having real issues with their governments.

Guns can contribute significantly against government tyranny.

[Vengeanze]

That my friend is the reason you have the 2nd amendment in America. Perhaps the world doesn't understand that the Constitution in America does not state what the government will do for you or it's obligation towards its people. It is a charter of negative liberties against the government to restrain it. And specifically the 2nd amendment is not there to prevent authorities from not allowing people to own guns. Read this next part very carefully. It is there to prevent the government from turning on its people and changing it into any other system that the people do not authorize. It is a written threat and a promise that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not for sport. Not for coolness. But to CONTROL GOVERNMENT. Not the body itself. But the once in a while socialist that gets out of hand. We get torches and pitchforks first then elections and then the 2nd amendment remedy is there.

We use democracy instead of weapons to control government. But I'm a socialist so guess that puts me on your nut list.

[ATAG_Doc]

We use democracy instead of weapons to control government. But I'm a socialist so guess that puts me on your nut list.

Democracies always fail. They always end up being mob rule. All it takes is for one group to become more populous than the other people that have lived there for centuries and they have more votes and do and elect who they want and do what they want. Socialism is responsible for more than 70 million deaths in only a hand full of nations. I wouldn't be too proud to admit that on here.

I hope it doesn't come as a shock to you but look into German history during the 1920's through 1930's. HE was elected also. And HE to was a socialist.

The United States isn't a democracy. Hope that doesn't come as a shock to anyone not living here.

[Lixma]

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane).

...what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

It's this obstinate attitude that causes what happened with the riots, if police is not a lethal threat, people will simply ignore them.

:!:

....you can actually see it in the arrogance and patronising attitude of their posts.. the conception and tolerance for others' ideas and principles is quite a random one here..


:grin:

If only people were as tolerant to other people's views as you, Sternjaeger.

[nearmiss]

We use democracy instead of weapons to control government. But I'm a socialist so guess that puts me on your nut list.

Any country whose citizens do not have the right to bear arms, is facing real problems. I say that as I view the current banking and economic crisis in the world. Riots and insurrection aimed at incompetency in governments are central topics of international news daily.

People can only give up so much through entitlements until there is no more give up. When people become desperate for their daily needs then all the cautions and high sounding words won't mean a thing.

Failied social experiments won't mean zip, because when someone else has to pay for others to live and they don't have the means to provide for themselves... it's gonna hit the proverbial fan.

I want access to lots of guns and ammo when it hits the fan. :cool:

[Sternjaeger II]

:!:

:grin:

If only people were as tolerant to other people's views as you, Sternjaeger.

lol, touche', but it's only a reflection of what I normally get here...

you lot founded an empire on guns and violence and now live in complete denial, puh-leeease! ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

I want access to lots of guns and ammo when it hits the fan. :cool:

correcto-mondo! :cool:

[ATAG_Doc]

I fear the person that is so trusting that they allow persons in power to have so much control over their lives. Such as the food you eat. The food supply itself. Everything I could not allow myself to be so dependent on elected persons to not have a change of heart and decide that I was not the kind of person that should be allowed to inhabit my own land. Don't think that it can't / wont happen. You have an open society? Have a lot of new people arriving that are just hanging around and their numbers grow? When they get large enough to become a voting force in a democracy its all too easy for a movement to plant seeds to take over from within then you will not have any choice. I don't like allowing anyone to have that power. Men are fallible and always will be.

[Lixma]

Guys, you know who you are, you really ought to give up on these (deleted word) apocalypse fantasies. You know the ones; It's finally happened - the 'sh*t has hit the fan' and you and your Glock are the only thing standing between a hoard of liberal, homosexual, zombie Democrats and your pregnant wife and subterranean stash of radiation-proof tinned goods.

It's not healthy, you know.

[ATAG_Doc]

Guys, you know who you are, you really ought to give up on these (edit) apocalypse fantasies. You know the ones; It's finally happened - the 'sh*t has hit the fan' and you and your Glock are the only thing standing between a hoard of liberal, homosexual, zombie Democrats and your pregnant wife and subterranean stash of radiation-proof tinned goods.

It's not healthy, you know.

Not sure what you mean. Go grab The Original Argument and read it. It's a very good read and honestly I can't remember a time where America was alive and interested in their founding fathers. They are alive and are reading so much about our founders. It's an awakening like we've not seen probably since the atrocious Woodrow Wilson era. But it is a fantastic read and a new #1 best seller!

[nearmiss]

Lixma

I'd suggest you move onto something else, your last posting laced with vulgar expressions indicates frustration with the topic.

Just sayin' because vulgarity will get you a ban.

[Lixma]

:?:

It was meant as humour.

laced with vulgar expressions

No it wasn't.

(Maybe Democrat is considered vulgar in some circles...)

[ATAG_Doc]

:?:

It was meant as humour.



No it wasn't.

(Maybe Democrat is considered vulgar in some circles...)

Not really. Today's democrats are not like the ones I use to know. Today they have been infected by people and ideals that are not even of this land. They call it progressive now and they have sickened both left and right. But that word is dicey now days to. I supposed they will start calling themselves blue dog democrats next.
But everyone is onto them now :)

[Vengeanze]

Lixma

I'd suggest you move onto something else, your last posting laced with vulgar expressions indicates frustration with the topic.

Just sayin' because vulgarity will get you a ban.
I'll be on my way too so u funboys can have the room for yourselfs.

[Hood]

I'm quite happy living without guns. If the stuff hit the fan I'd much rather that my neighbour has to come and whack me in the face than shoot my head off from across the street. If other countries want to allow guns that's fine, but that doesn't give them the right to criticise the UK, just as it doesn't give us in the UK the right to criticise the internal policies of other sovereign nations (and I'm talking specifically about gun law here, not frolics into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc etc etc).

As for the argument about guns = crime well who knows. You're better off looking at the type of people who will use guns for crime. Anybody can flip and go on a killing rampage. If you equate the law that guns are not allowed in the UK with the recent riots, then that's plain ignorance. I really can't see an ordinary person (or fact an armed policeman or soldier) in the UK starting to indiscriminately shoot at rioters, and allowing guns would in my opinion simply escalate the fear and death.

And as for Stern's post about how the UK founded an Empire based on guns etc, that's also a teensy bit wrong too. In fact it was based on leadership and force of will, and the leaders were b&stards. The number of professional soldiers involved was small as most of the controlling forces in any territory were local levies. And of course a nations peoples move on from their past.

Don't be too sure about the character of British reserve as it's a veneer - we may not allow guns but scratch us a little bit and we'll bite your face off.

Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Guys, you know who you are, you really ought to give up on these (deleted word) apocalypse fantasies. You know the ones; It's finally happened - the 'sh*t has hit the fan' and you and your Glock are the only thing standing between a hoard of liberal, homosexual, zombie Democrats and your pregnant wife and subterranean stash of radiation-proof tinned goods.

It's not healthy, you know.

well frankly I don't think that surviving an apocalypse would be my dream, but if I have to I'd rather be prepared to fight. And yes, you can fight with knives, sticks and stones, but if I can knock you down forever from 300 yds I win.

Your blind faith and narrow sight on our society might fail you before than what you think unfortunately..

[Sternjaeger II]

I'll be on my way too so u funboys can have the room for yourselfs.

I don't understand why some of you folks just can't have a simple exchange of ideas without getting their knickers in a twist. :confused:

[nearmiss]

:?:

It was meant as humour.



No it wasn't.

(Maybe Democrat is considered vulgar in some circles...)

Evidently, your conscience must be seared. You don't know from vulgarity.

Well when you get banned for vulgarity you sure won't know why will you?

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm quite happy living without guns. If the stuff hit the fan I'd much rather that my neighbour has to come and whack me in the face than shoot my head off from across the street. If other countries want to allow guns that's fine, but that doesn't give them the right to criticise the UK, just as it doesn't give us in the UK the right to criticise the internal policies of other sovereign nations (and I'm talking specifically about gun law here, not frolics into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc etc etc).

Your country allows guns, not pistols, not full bore semiautos, but you can have shotguns, carabines and semiautomatic rimfire. That's enough for a good party.. and I have to say that people seem more ok about guns in the north than in the midlands/south..


As for the argument about guns = crime well who knows. You're better off looking at the type of people who will use guns for crime. Anybody can flip and go on a killing rampage. If you equate the law that guns are not allowed in the UK with the recent riots, then that's plain ignorance. I really can't see an ordinary person (or fact an armed policeman or soldier) in the UK starting to indiscriminately shoot at rioters, and allowing guns would in my opinion simply escalate the fear and death.

And as for Stern's post about how the UK founded an Empire based on guns etc, that's also a teensy bit wrong too. In fact it was based on leadership and force of will, and the leaders were b&stards. The number of professional soldiers involved was small as most of the controlling forces in any territory were local levies. And of course a nations peoples move on from their past.

Don't be too sure about the character of British reserve as it's a veneer - we may not allow guns but scratch us a little bit and we'll bite your face off.

Hood

Yeah, cos you went to India and talked them through the idea of being colonised, didn't ya? :rolleyes:

I always admired and will always admire the determination of the British, the best "can-do" attitude I've ever seen, but it's far from what things used to be me thinks, just like many other countries. At least you kept the positive spirit and the good ales :mrgreen:

[Lixma]

Your blind faith and narrow sight on our society might fail you before than what you think unfortunately..

Again with the apocalypticism.

Again with the insults.

If you, or anyone, has any evidence that the introduction of free access to firearms will benefit Great Britain I am all ears. If anyone can convince me that the introduction of firearms will not result in more gun-crime, more accidents, more police-shoot-outs or more curious children blowing their faces off; more night-club shootings and lethal gang violence; if you can convince me that these things will be less frequent once we introduce firearms then by all means argue for it.

But here's some things that are not going to persuade me.....

a) The fearmongering "Oh, you wait and see! You'll be sorry you didn't have a gun when....blah...blah".

b) The insults..."You think you know better....head in sand...blind faith...."

c) Aphorisms such as "An armed society is a polite society".

d) Dreadful analogies along the lines of "Automobiles have a higher accident rate so let's ban cars!"

e) Comparing gun-control as just a short hop away from Nazi Germany.

e) 'History' books by the likes of Glenn Beck. GLENN BECK !

I don't have anything against guns or the people who like shooting them. I just happen to believe that the introduction of free access to firearms in Great Britain will result in a rise in all those things I listed above - and for no tangible benefit as far as I can tell. So at this time and on balance I prefer the current situation*.

* That doesn't mean it's ideal, optimal or beyond improvement.

[nearmiss]

Again with the apocalypticism.

Again with the insults.

If you, or anyone, has any evidence that the introduction of free access to firearms will benefit Great Britain I am all ears. If anyone can convince me that the introduction of firearms will not result in more gun-crime, more accidents, more police-shoot-outs or more curious children blowing their faces off; more night-club shootings and lethal gang violence; if you can convince me that these things will be less frequent once we introduce firearms then by all means argue for it.

But here's some things that are not going to persuade me.....

a) The fearmongering "Oh, you wait and see! You'll be sorry you didn't have a gun when....blah...blah".

b) The insults..."You think you know better....head in sand...blind faith...."

c) Aphorisms such as "An armed society is a polite society".

d) Dreadful analogies along the lines of "Automobiles have a higher accident rate so let's ban cars!"

e) Comparing gun-control as just a short hop away from Nazi Germany.

e) 'History' books by the likes of Glenn Beck. GLENN BECK !

I don't have anything against guns or the people who like shooting them. I just happen to believe that the introduction of free access to firearms in Great Britain will result in a rise in all those things I listed above - and for no tangible benefit as far as I can tell. So at this time and on balance I prefer the current situation*.

* That doesn't mean it's ideal, optimal or beyond improvement.

You are probably right, if you don't already have guns it's a bit late to start.

The insurgents in Iraq taught the world you don't need guns, you just need explosives and cell phones to cause havoc.

[ATAG_Doc]

Again with the apocalypticism.

Again with the insults.

If you, or anyone, has any evidence that the introduction of free access to firearms will benefit Great Britain I am all ears. If anyone can convince me that the introduction of firearms will not result in more gun-crime, more accidents, more police-shoot-outs or more curious children blowing their faces off; more night-club shootings and lethal gang violence; if you can convince me that these things will be less frequent once we introduce firearms then by all means argue for it.

But here's some things that are not going to persuade me.....

a) The fearmongering "Oh, you wait and see! You'll be sorry you didn't have a gun when....blah...blah".

b) The insults..."You think you know better....head in sand...blind faith...."

c) Aphorisms such as "An armed society is a polite society".

d) Dreadful analogies along the lines of "Automobiles have a higher accident rate so let's ban cars!"

e) Comparing gun-control as just a short hop away from Nazi Germany.

e) 'History' books by the likes of Glenn Beck. GLENN BECK !

I don't have anything against guns or the people who like shooting them. I just happen to believe that the introduction of free access to firearms in Great Britain will result in a rise in all those things I listed above - and for no tangible benefit as far as I can tell. So at this time and on balance I prefer the current situation*.

* That doesn't mean it's ideal, optimal or beyond improvement.

Guns don't prevent crime. Never was intended to prevent crime. But one by one is prevents recidivism. I can prove it.

[ruggbutt]

I hope that those of you with the "I'm happy w/out guns" attitude never have to be placed in a situation where someone else has one and is intent on hurting you. I'm posting here because the man that entered my home (I was 15) was intent on hurting anyone present. I was armed. I won. I don't feel bad about winning either. I never thought it would happen to me. I lived in an upper middle class neighborhood. No gang activity, no drug dealers and no deviants. But the man had a car, he drove from his neighborhood to mine. And my home looked ripe for the picking.

I pray you never have to be forced into a situation and once in a while I have a bad dream about it, but I wake up and tell myself "you survived, you have nothing to be ashamed of". It can happen to you and if your country or city or state has disarmed you your government is saying it doesn't trust you nor do they care if you live or die. They don't care about your god given right to live a happy life free from persecution. Remember something folks, the bad guy can always get a gun, even in a country where guns are outlawed. I'm sure you know that drugs are illegal to have inside of prisons, where the population is controlled and watched 24/7. Yet drugs are one of the biggest problems in prison. Outlawing something doesn't really do anything, except make it possible to prosecute the person at a later date. If he's caught. Apply that to firearms. How are outlawed guns going to help keep you safe?

[ATAG_Doc]

Bing-Go! People outside of the US never think that they might be writing someone that actually had to defend themselves from an attacker using a weapon. They've never experienced 2 persons kicking down their front and back doors at 4 AM and they be armed with a shotguns and wearing a ski masks.

[Sternjaeger II]

Again with the apocalypticism.

Again with the insults.

I'm not insulting you.. :rolleyes:



If you, or anyone, has any evidence that the introduction of free access to firearms will benefit Great Britain I am all ears. If anyone can convince me that the introduction of firearms will not result in more gun-crime, more accidents, more police-shoot-outs or more curious children blowing their faces off; more night-club shootings and lethal gang violence; if you can convince me that these things will be less frequent once we introduce firearms then by all means argue for it.

But here's some things that are not going to persuade me.....

a) The fearmongering "Oh, you wait and see! You'll be sorry you didn't have a gun when....blah...blah".

b) The insults..."You think you know better....head in sand...blind faith...."

c) Aphorisms such as "An armed society is a polite society".

d) Dreadful analogies along the lines of "Automobiles have a higher accident rate so let's ban cars!"

e) Comparing gun-control as just a short hop away from Nazi Germany.

e) 'History' books by the likes of Glenn Beck. GLENN BECK !

I don't have anything against guns or the people who like shooting them. I just happen to believe that the introduction of free access to firearms in Great Britain will result in a rise in all those things I listed above - and for no tangible benefit as far as I can tell. So at this time and on balance I prefer the current situation*.

* That doesn't mean it's ideal, optimal or beyond improvement.

I'm sorry, but you must be very confused..

What do you mean exactly with "free access to firearms"? :confused:
If deemed suitable by your local authorities, you can already own a gun in this country, as long as it's not a pistol (unless it's a muzzle loader), a semi-auto or fully auto full bore gun.

The irony is that the legislation has been randomly adapted following the gun massacres where lunatics (who were as culpable of what they did as much as the geniuses that gave em licenses) went on a shooting spree with semi-autos, but you can still have a .22 rimfire semiauto (still lethal), a full bore bolt action rifle (VERY lethal indeed) and a plethora of smooth bore guns.

My point is that whenever politics get in the way, it's always citizens that have to pay for it. I too am comfortable with armed people around (heck, I was raised in a country where even private guards have a holster and a Beretta in it!), and you definitely have way less petty crime and vandalism as you have here.

How can a police force act effectively if deprived of the means to do it? The existence of armed response squads mean that the Government itself reckons there is a threat that needs to be counteracted effectively, so why giving the possibility to do it only to a small minority of police agents?!

Again, the Cumbria shooter could have been stopped from the very beginning, since he was chased at a distance from unarmed police officers, which could only assist powerless to the massacre he carried on..

[Sternjaeger II]

I hope that those of you with the "I'm happy w/out guns" attitude never have to be placed in a situation where someone else has one and is intent on hurting you. I'm posting here because the man that entered my home (I was 15) was intent on hurting anyone present. I was armed. I won. I don't feel bad about winning either. I never thought it would happen to me. I lived in an upper middle class neighborhood. No gang activity, no drug dealers and no deviants. But the man had a car, he drove from his neighborhood to mine. And my home looked ripe for the picking.

I pray you never have to be forced into a situation and once in a while I have a bad dream about it, but I wake up and tell myself "you survived, you have nothing to be ashamed of". It can happen to you and if your country or city or state has disarmed you your government is saying it doesn't trust you nor do they care if you live or die. They don't care about your god given right to live a happy life free from persecution. Remember something folks, the bad guy can always get a gun, even in a country where guns are outlawed. I'm sure you know that drugs are illegal to have inside of prisons, where the population is controlled and watched 24/7. Yet drugs are one of the biggest problems in prison. Outlawing something doesn't really do anything, except make it possible to prosecute the person at a later date. If he's caught. Apply that to firearms. How are outlawed guns going to help keep you safe?

Exactly.

Some years ago here in my area in the UK a man, who apparently was insane, randomly entered a house in a residential area and killed 3 members of the family, actually chasing one outside in the park and finishing him there and then. This bad stuff happens here as well, but again, as long as it doesn't bother you directly..

[Lixma]

Remember something folks, the bad guy can always get a gun, even in a country where guns are outlawed.

Very true. But with a wider availability of guns the probability and method by which illicit guns find themselves in circulation increases and expands.

The dumb teenager who sneaks his dads gun out. The children who go rooting around the house. The burglar who comes across a 'safely' locked gun cabinet. The responsible gun-club member who accidentally left his pistols on the train. It's also the chancers who during a riot helped themselves to some armament from the gun store.

This is but a taster of how guns slip out from their preferred habitat and into irresponsible hands regardless of gun-control. And this is what Great Britain has to look forward to.

I lived on Walworth Road in London a few years back. I was only there 2 years and there were 2 shootings within 200 yards of my flat (heard them, didn't see them). One was a drive by, the other, I think, was an argument in a club that spilled out into the street and got tasty. With more guns in Great Britain I believe we will see more of these things, not less.

I'm sure you know that drugs are illegal to have inside of prisons, where the population is controlled and watched 24/7. Yet drugs are one of the biggest problems in prison.

I actually think marijuana is informally encouraged these days. Safer for the staff that way.

Outlawing something doesn't really do anything, except make it possible to prosecute the person at a later date. If he's caught. Apply that to firearms. How are outlawed guns going to help keep you safe?

I'm not arguing for putting the genie back in the bottle, I don't want him let out in the first place. Mercifully, in Great Britain we still have that option.

[Lixma]

They've never experienced 2 persons kicking down their front and back doors at 4 AM and they be armed with a shotguns and wearing a ski masks.

You have a woman's purse!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOEehh_i_v8

[ATAG_Doc]

The dumb teenager who sneaks his dads gun out.


You cannot live in a free society with guns available and have no control over your kids. <-- BIG HINT Almost all problems can be traced back to this. Kinds having kids.

I grew up around them. They were not mysterious objects or things that I was told not to touch by my mom or dad. Dad like me had every thing loaded in the house all the time. It's just that way it's just loaded. But we never thought about using them for any other reason than sport and defending yourself or your family.

I was hunting with my family at 7 and shot my own deer at 9 and processed the entire deer all by myself with my dad telling me what to do each step of the way. He did that so as to get it out of the way that if you shoot it you eat it and you process it entirely. I did the same thing to my son. That way he will know what is involved at each step from shot to dinner.

There was no fascination with firearms that you may have by this statement that these kids in your example had in my house. It was always seen as a tool. It's looked at very differently.

You never played with them. They are tools.

[ruggbutt]

The dumb teenager who sneaks his dads gun out. The children who go rooting around the house. The burglar who comes across a 'safely' locked gun cabinet. The responsible gun-club member who accidentally left his pistols on the train. It's also the chancers who during a riot helped themselves to some armament from the gun store.
There's just so much stereotype there that isn't true. When I was in high school half of the kids that drove had pickup trucks with rifle racks in them. And rifles and shotguns often in those racks. I had a .357 magnum that was under the seat of my 4x4. And I was in plenty of fights. Never once thought I should get out the pistol. Then again, I knew first hand what the end result of what kind of damage a firearm would do. I'll discuss your examples in order: Dumb teenager: That happens. Not often. Even here in the states it's rare, and we have enough guns for every person in this country. Kids who "root" around the house: Again, such a small percentage that it's almost non-existent. The key is education. A close friend of mine has 3 kids. At the time the oldest was 8, the youngest 4. Cops chased a guy in his neighborhood, dude ditched his gun in my buddy's back yard. The kids found it. They went and got dad. Because dad made them watch the NRA's Eddie Eagle video so that they knew exactly what to do when they found a gun. The kids were also allowed to go to the range with dad and to shoot, so that the gun wasn't a "mystery". They felt the same way about firearms as they did the kitchen dishes. They pretty much didn't care. Burgler: It happens. Yet you are still blaming the inanimate object. I've never once had one of my guns shoot anyone all by themselves. Gun club member: I'm pretty sure that people are as responsible in your country as they are in mine, at least as far as gun owners go. I've never seen anyone leave a firearm behind in the thousands of matches I've shot. Ever. It doesn't happen. Rioters: Every gun store I've been to puts their guns in a safe every night. They aren't left in the glass viewing cases. Almost forgot: I was a gun dealer and I had the right to deny service to anyone. And I did. If dude looked or acted sketchy no sale.



I actually think marijuana is informally encouraged these days. Safer for the staff that way.
Doubtful. At least in the U.S. it isn't and drugs are the single most cause of inmate problems in U.S. prisons.



I'm not arguing for putting the genie back in the bottle, I don't want him let out in the first place. Mercifully, in Great Britain we still have that option.
Too late. I've never been to the UK but I bet I could find a firearm to purchase within 24 hours.

[ATAG_Doc]

I think some people believe that if a gun is close at hand it will be used and it simply isn't true here. Like you everyone I know had one but if you got into a fight as daddy would say to me you take your butt whooping like a man son. But that gun is to protect you from others that bring a gun not from fists. Big hint - I was fearful of my dad because he was home every night and mom cooked and we all ate dinner together.

[nearmiss]

You cannot live in a free society with guns available and have no control over your kids. <-- BIG HINT Almost all problems can be traced back to this. Kinds having kids.

I grew up around them. They were not mysterious objects or things that I was told not to touch by my mom or dad. Dad like me had every thing loaded in the house all the time. It's just that way it's just loaded. But we never thought about using them for any other reason than sport and defending yourself or your family.

I was hunting with my family at 7 and shot my own deer at 9 and processed the entire deer all by myself with my dad telling me what to do each step of the way. He did that so as to get it out of the way that if you shoot it you eat it and you process it entirely. I did the same thing to my son. That way he will know what is involved at each step from shot to dinner.

There was no fascination with firearms that you may have by this statement that these kids in your example had in my house. It was always seen as a tool. It's looked at very differently.

You never played with them. They are tools.

I've always said, " Sure am glad I'm not a deer in deer seasons, all those itchy fingered, fat bellied jerks would want to shoot my butt".

[ATAG_Doc]

Aye. Deer season is 365 days a year. Deer season only applies to public hunting lands or leases.

On your own property you can hunt anything, anytime, using any means. You can spot light, shoot from a vehicle. My jeep is my deer blind.

Early in the morning before the sun is up you'd see a jeep out there idling and steam rising from the exhaust. Hot coffee, cigarettes and a .300 WinMag.

[Sternjaeger II]

Aye. Deer season is 365 days a year. Deer season only applies to public hunting lands or leases.

On your own property you can hunt anything, anytime, using any means. You can spot light, shoot from a vehicle. My jeep is my deer blind.

Early in the morning before the sun is up you'd see a jeep out there idling and steam rising from the exhaust. Hot coffee, cigarettes and a .300 WinMag.

BAM!!! .300 WinMag! You're a member of the "1 shot 1 kill" corporation uh? ;-)

[ATAG_Doc]

BAM!!! .300 WinMag! You're a member of the "1 shot 1 kill" corporation uh? ;-)

Charter member. And the 1000 yard club to :)

[MD_Titus]

and would've ended in 1 day, but perhaps you prefer the alternative which is for the UK to be bled to death slowly?
what, a massive bodycount is preferable to some imagined slow death? in what form would this demise take?

sorry, who just got downgraded?
you know what, I find it frankly disturbing that in front of such massive police fails people still believe they can be protected by them. People love digging their heads in the sand here, hoping that it's never gonna happen to them.

I've heard conversation where some pride themselves with the fact that there is no need for brutal police force here..in a village in Devon though..

It's this obstinate attitude that causes what happened with the riots, if police is not a lethal threat, people will simply ignore them.

And yes, there's insurances and what not to repay the damage, but for some of the damage there's no compensation that will fill the void.

Do you really think that in the end, once this is over, the minority of people which will be charged with some offence will actually make things better? This lot had nothing to lose..
there is never a need for a brutal police force. what do you want, syria?

it was sheer numbers that was the issue. at least get a grasp of teh facts man. the night they sent out 16,000 police on the streets of london? nothing. happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

If only the police were armed none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots

If only the French pulled their head out of the sand and armed their police none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait....
top notch.
yeah, truth is that those were real riots, whereas what happened here was mainly looting. Things could have gone way out of hand in those two contexts if there was no armed police forces.

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane), again because you weren't affected directly by it. Truth is that police couldnt do its job properly because they're untrained and unarmed, which defies the concept of policing.

Yes, if you're a citizen brought up with certain moral standards this is the kind of policing you will need, but when such a huge component of your society is made by people that don't give a toss about anything and have nothing to lose, you have these phenomena happening in an alarming copycat chain.

I for one care about and respect the society I live in and will do what I can to protect it and my household, and know that police forces unfortunately can't be everywhere all the time.

Firearms are not just meant for defence, they have other uses, believe it or not, but fortunately I am given the possibility to choose and have them, what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

All I can hope for is that you will never find yourself in a position when you might really do with one, cos it's not gonna be fun..
sorry, how many years between these incidents? what kind of time frame does it take for the US to clock up a similar death toll... i care for and respect the society i live in, and it is one in which the police do not habitually carry firearms because the general population doesn't either.

and what are these other uses, opening troublesome jars? target shooting is practice for when you use it for real.

Does anyone think that the Eastern Block countries, East Germany, Romania, etc. would have put up with the Russia communist oppression for over 50 years if they'd have had guns? They would have tried to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the people in Somalia "today" would be under the oppression of the war lords, if the general population had access to guns?
They would try to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the oppression in Darfur would be going on if the persecuted people had guns? They would try to do something to resist.

When people are empowered with the will resist, or they have guns and guts, they can make oppressors seek easier prey.

Guns are harmless, they are just metal objects like cars, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. You can kill someone with any of the three in the hands of the wrong person.

Guns can be a tool of dubious value of course against government oppression.

When Russia was at war with Afghanistan they had the big helicopter gun ships with the extremely fast "guns". The Russians could wipe out an entire village with one 4 second fly by. The Afghans were helpless with their handguns against such weapons and a well equipped enemy. America gave the Afghans the SAM, RPG. The Afghans began to knock down those gunships. This was a war too costly to continue for Russia, they loaded up and left.

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation. Guns are not an end all solution to oppresive or aggressive governments. Guns can enable the people to resist and make subjugation of those people very difficult for aggressors.
the somalis are armed. eastern blok countries... well, they could have either been successful, or utterly slaughtered by armour. it's not doing rebel forces in libya much good, if they hadn't got air support... the mind recoils in horror. there's a difference between firearms and a level of support that militarises the entire population.
You just don't see those kinds of riots in Arizona where I live. During the L.A. riots some of the so-called black leaders were trying to get people stirred up here to riot. The thing is, we're all armed. In '92 I was carrying openly in a holster as is in accordance with the law. I also was a CCW instructor so I could carry concealed if I wanted to. Either way, the riots didn't happen here and continue to not happen here because the prevailing attitude is live and let live. Unless you're destroying my property or intend to harm. The law here allows a whole bunch of really neat stuff to happen should you decide to become a hoodlum. I've held car theives at gun point for the police. They thanked me. A buddy had a gun stolen and it was hidden in a business warehouse. He reported it stolen. We staked out the place and they came back to get it. The perps were looking down the barrel of my scoped AR-15 when they came out w/the stolen gun. The cops showed up, thanked us for holding the theives and moved on.

An armed society is a polite society. I shot 3 gun combat matches professionally for years and years. I've seen disagreements and I've seen some harsh words exchanged. Never did one person decide that the firearm was the answer to the argument. Whether that person had true respect for the weapon or whether he didn't wanna get smoked by the rest of the armed people present is something only that person can answer. In '95 my team shot 4th in the Soldier of Fortune world championships. Closest law enforcement or military team was 7th. The top 5 were sponsored civilian teams. In those days I was still a professional musician so my hair was long, down to my waist. I was the only competitor with long hair. Even got some smart alec comments from some of the other shooters. Till I shot. They were polite after that. It's hard to explain the dynamic between people when everyone is armed but it's one that I prefer. People for the most part are more polite. Like a normal human being should be. There's no childish screaming or someone being a jerk cuz they've had a bad day. Below is a shot from that match, on the shotgun stage. #4 buckshot or better were the loads we were required to carry. No birdshot.

http://iplaster.net/rugg/sof95a.jpg

I feel completely comfortable around others that are armed. I'm not intimidated in the least by someone carrying. In some ways, I believe that natural selection would work much better in a society where everyone was armed. Those that were too stupid (or rude) to get a clue wouldn't last long and society would be better off for it.
this... actually is a good advert for gun ownership. i'd hazard a guess and say it's the general attitude of your area that contributes as much as the gun ownership does though. nice folk are nice with or without arms, surely?

Guys, you know who you are, you really ought to give up on these (deleted word) apocalypse fantasies. You know the ones; It's finally happened - the 'sh*t has hit the fan' and you and your Glock are the only thing standing between a hoard of liberal, homosexual, zombie Democrats and your pregnant wife and subterranean stash of radiation-proof tinned goods.

It's not healthy, you know.
did make me laugh though

[unreasonable]

You cannot live in a free society with guns available and have no control over your kids. <-- BIG HINT Almost all problems can be traced back to this. Kinds having kids.

I grew up around them. They were not mysterious objects or things that I was told not to touch by my mom or dad. Dad like me had every thing loaded in the house all the time. It's just that way it's just loaded. But we never thought about using them for any other reason than sport and defending yourself or your family.

I was hunting with my family at 7 and shot my own deer at 9 and processed the entire deer all by myself with my dad telling me what to do each step of the way. He did that so as to get it out of the way that if you shoot it you eat it and you process it entirely. I did the same thing to my son. That way he will know what is involved at each step from shot to dinner.

There was no fascination with firearms that you may have by this statement that these kids in your example had in my house. It was always seen as a tool. It's looked at very differently.

You never played with them. They are tools.

:grin:

[unreasonable]

Yet you are still blaming the inanimate object. I've never once had one of my guns shoot anyone all by themselves.....

Doubtful. At least in the U.S. it isn't and drugs are the single most cause of inmate problems in U.S. prisons.



Edited for brevity..

I cannot help feel there is some inconsistency here...after all I have never had one of my opium pipes light up all by itself.

[unreasonable]

On a state of nature:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

— Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes

Perhaps an accurate description of some London estates ;-), which is why we agree to give up certain rights to do as we please in exchange for an acceptable level of security. Yes, even in the US of A. Just because "we, the people" are collectively sovereign, does not mean that each individual US citizen is sovereign.

Of course there is room for reasoned argument over which rights to give up, and how much security we get - and there is absolutely no reason to suggest that the balance should be the same in every society, or even for the towns, farming areas and wild wastes within a given country, depending on history, culture and the current level of gun-ownership.

I understand the annoyance of those yanks living in the wild(ish) west when metropolitan liberals nag them about gun control. If I lived in Arizona or some where similar I would own guns too. But equally, some of the pro-gun comment here, when directed at the way in which the UK (and many other countries) choose to well-regulate themselves, is completely unreasonable.

[xnomad]

Cars kill more people than guns? How is that even an argument?
What are cars for, they are for transportation they are a necessity, their purpose is to propel you.

What's a gun's primary purpose? To kill people! Really guys, if you use that argument you really need to back off and go rethink your logic.

As for guns, they are just too easy to use, point and click..... knifing someone, or beating them to death requires a lot more intent. You'd also have trouble knifing a whole school if you were on a rampage.

Saying all that though, I do believe that we should at least be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons. Here in New South Wales you can't own anything that can be used as a weapon, so I can't even get my wife some pepper spray or a stun gun. They are incredibly strict here, I had to throw away all my airsoft guns when I moved here. Oh and all my deactivated ammunition. You need a bloody license to own inert/deactivated ammunition! And here's the best part; to even own plastic airsoft bb's you'd need to have a license! It's nuts!

[ATAG_Doc]

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

Benjamin Franklin

[unreasonable]

Usually quoted from the published source as;

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Obviously very different, presumably because Franklin, at least, recognized the fatuousness of the abridged version.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Cars kill more people than guns? How is that even an argument?
What are cars for, they are for transportation they are a necessity, their purpose is to propel you.


They are also extremely deadly.

Well there were the three men in Birmingham that were deliberately run down last week. In my own home town 46 year old woman was deliberately run down out side her home a week ago as well. The dirver jumped the kirb and then dragged her 50 yard down the road just because she yelled at him to stop doing burnouts in their street.

You had that guy in the eastern state a year or so ago who killed his three young sons by driving them into a dam after he lost custody.

In Western Australia it is widely recognised that men in rual areas suffering from depression (many family farmers are falling on hard times) are using thier cars to commit suicide by running into trees at high speed. If they used their guns their families wouldn't get insurance payouts.

It just goes to show that if a person is determined enough they will use any means at their disposal to meet their ends.

[Sternjaeger II]

I don't think there's much point in carrying on this conversation. It's obvious that the politically correct brainwash culture did its job here,and the truth is that the gun policy here is very hypocritical and ridiculous (nobody has still explained me why a K98 is less lethal than a Garand).

I have friends here who I took to the shooting range and who have learned to appreciate and understand that there's nothing to be afraid of when handling firearms,as mentioned by raggbutt,there's no place safer than a shooting range.
I suppose that most of the people against guns never handled one,they just demonise them and deem their use as killing machines,but hey guess what,skeet shooting and target shooting are Olympic disciplines! Driving a car into someone,on the other hand, isn't.. Go figure :rolleyes:

The car=gun equation needs to be seen in this perspective: in both cases they aren't bought to kill people,but potentially they could. Now whilst you can't ride a shotgun to work,your Toyota Prius (cos u r probably driving one of them) will take you almost anywhere,so why would you give it up?it's not like you're gonna go driving over people in it..
It's the same logic with guns: yes, 3 loonies killed people with their guns,but I am no looney,why should I give em up?
The answer,either than because your fat bottom needs it,is that cars are a precious source of money for governments. Why not improving the public transport so that we can get rid of cars? Heck,we spent billions of dollars to develop a JSF,what if we invested that for the creation of a transport system that takes you from A to B at low cost?

Road taxes,oil,insurance,maintenance.. Your car is convenient to them for you to have.

Your guns,on the other hand,are dangerous..

I think it's the ignorance on the subject that is dramatically dangerous,they don't want us to think anymore,all we need to do is follow the flock towards the edge of the cliff and be happy that we're not the ones that become part of the collateral damage charts..

[ruggbutt]

I suppose that most of the people against guns never handled one,they just demonise them and deem their use as killing machines
Had a g/f like that. Told me when I spent the night I'd have to leave my gun in my car. That happened once. Then she said it was ok to put in the kitchen cabinet. I told her that she was scared of something she knew nothing about. I talked her into going shooting. At the time, I didn't own anything that was less than .44 caliber so I loaded some .44 specials for her. They were really light loads but she fell in love w/my S&W Magnum. Then I let her shoot my .45 Commander, which was my carry gun. Next thing you know she wanted one. I was a gun dealer at the time and I had a Browning Hi-Power in stock I was saving for myself. Typically 9mm and less I categorize as "chick guns" but since it was John Moses Browning's brainchild I figured I could carry a lesser caliber. Instead I gave it to my g/f. She made me take it to my gunsmith, add an extended thumb safety and remove the magazine safety.

Soon after that her "baby" was getting scratched up in her purse. She wanted a .45 Commander like mine. So I bought her one. She carried that for a while but it was too heavy, so I gave her a .380 Government. As far as I know she still carries it. She wanted a rifle after that so I got her a beautiful AK-47 that she just loved. Even after we broke up she'd call and ask if she could come over and load some ammo so she could go shooting that weekend. I let her use my loading press whenever she wanted to.

The point is that a scared girl had irrational fears of an inanimate object, cuz she believed what the press and the liberals said. She saw the light when I educated her. Women typically come around quickly and listen when you try to teach them something, especially if you know what you're talking about. That was true w/my ex and it was true w/every woman that enrolled in my CCW class. I find it funny that folks from other countries are scared of guns yet never have owned nor fired one, but the fairer sex isn't afraid to learn and to take their safety in their own hands.

Then again, that's what makes America great.

[Vengeanze]

Had a g/f like that. Told me when I spent the night I'd have to leave my gun in my car. That happened once. Then she said it was ok to put in the kitchen cabinet. I told her that she was scared of something she knew nothing about. I talked her into going shooting. At the time, I didn't own anything that was less than .44 caliber so I loaded some .44 specials for her. They were really light loads but she fell in love w/my S&W Magnum. Then I let her shoot my .45 Commander, which was my carry gun. Next thing you know she wanted one. I was a gun dealer at the time and I had a Browning Hi-Power in stock I was saving for myself. Typically 9mm and less I categorize as "chick guns" but since it was John Moses Browning's brainchild I figured I could carry a lesser caliber. Instead I gave it to my g/f. She made me take it to my gunsmith, add an extended thumb safety and remove the magazine safety.

Soon after that her "baby" was getting scratched up in her purse. She wanted a .45 Commander like mine. So I bought her one. She carried that for a while but it was too heavy, so I gave her a .380 Government. As far as I know she still carries it. She wanted a rifle after that so I got her a beautiful AK-47 that she just loved. Even after we broke up she'd call and ask if she could come over and load some ammo so she could go shooting that weekend. I let her use my loading press whenever she wanted to.

What a great lovestory!

[baronWastelan]

sorry, who just got downgraded?



I dunno -- the former Naval Power which now has a total of one aircraft carrier in service, and not a single fixed wing aircraft squadron to launch from it? Downgraded, from a Navy to a Coast Guard?

[drewpee]

Do a search on gun deaths by country and see for you self if guns in the community is a good thing. Not a hard thing to work out.

[unreasonable]

I don't think there's much point in carrying on this conversation. It's obvious that the politically correct brainwash culture did its job here,and the truth is that the gun policy here is very hypocritical and ridiculous (nobody has still explained me why a K98 is less lethal than a Garand). ..

Hypocrisy is a vital element of a well functioning society. Human nature is too dark to withstand the full glare of the sun... "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. " Note "on that wall", not strutting up and down the high street packing a pistol.;-)

I suppose that most of the people against guns never handled one,they just demonise them and deem their use as killing machines,but hey guess what,skeet shooting and target shooting are Olympic disciplines! Driving a car into someone,on the other hand, isn't.. Go figure :rolleyes:..

You may suppose that, but you do not know it. It is certainly not the case about everyone opposed to your POV. It is also, as I am sure you know, irrelevant to either the facts at issue or people's right to live in the kind of society they choose.

The point is whether or not "the people", in this case the British people, have the right to choose to live in a society where gun ownership is relatively restricted and discouraged.

You do not have to agree with their choice or even their reasoning, but the disparaging references to ignorance, fear, political correctness etc are just as shallow as the sort of remarks about inbred rednecks obsessing over their hollow-points that you hear occasionally from your mirror images in the opposite camp.

[raaaid]

im from spain

been in the states one year

an schange student as me got shot in the face by accident :(

still undertsand the necesity to defend from the state if needed

[drewpee]

This toppic is makes me sad. http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

[von Pilsner]

The point is whether or not "the people", in this case the British people, have the right to choose to live in a society where gun ownership is relatively restricted and discouraged.

You do not have to agree with their choice or even their reasoning, but the disparaging references to ignorance, fear, political correctness etc are just as shallow as the sort of remarks about inbred rednecks obsessing over their hollow-points that you hear occasionally from your mirror images in the opposite camp.

Well said.

[ElAurens]

It's quite simple really, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

If you feel confident protecting your loved ones and home with pots and pans and whatever blunt instruments you have at hand, then fine.

I prefer to take my chances with Heckler & Koch and 10 .45 caliber modern self defense rounds in the mag and 10 more in the spare mag at my side.

The sad truth is that the world we live in is getting more violent by the day.
I have no respect for the wolves that prey on the sheep that most people are turning into these days, I prefer to be the sheep dog.

Carry on.

[DayGlow]

This toppic is makes me sad. http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm
This is even more sad

http://www.washingtonaccidentbooks.com/blog/keep-your-child-safe-prevent-car-accident-injury/

Why does it impact you differently because a gun is involved?

[baronWastelan]

this is saddest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJfz6n2YEEk

[MD_Titus]

I dunno -- the former Naval Power which now has a total of one aircraft carrier in service, and not a single fixed wing aircraft squadron to launch from it? Downgraded, from a Navy to a Coast Guard?

touche, but that just means we can't bomb people from the sea. plenty enough cruise missiles and the like left.

sternjaeger - i'd leave this to ruggbutt tbh, as he is doing a far better job of arguing the point, and without resorting to such demeaning terms as you favour. quite what political correctness has to do with guns is utterly beyond me. perhaps it's some kind of leakage from the daily mail, where everything is "PC gone mad", such as this case. rather than an ethos that has pervaded uk law enforcement since... well, pretty much it's inception really.

[ATAG_Doc]

touche, but that just means we can't bomb people from the sea. plenty enough cruise missiles and the like left.

sternjaeger - i'd leave this to ruggbutt tbh, as he is doing a far better job of arguing the point, and without resorting to such demeaning terms as you favour. quite what political correctness has to do with guns is utterly beyond me. perhaps it's some kind of leakage from the daily mail, where everything is "PC gone mad", such as this case. rather than an ethos that has pervaded uk law enforcement since... well, pretty much it's inception really.

Not being nit picky but it's spelled favor. Hello???

[BadAim]

I have just spent the last hour and a half reading this entire thread, and it was much less painful than I imagined it would be. I'm quite impressed with the (relatively) civil level of intercourse going on here, a very difficult thing considering the highly charged nature of the subject.

By way of background I'm a Yank, who lives in a State where persons are required to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public (or to remove a pistol from their house for any reason), and that such permit must be issued if there is no compelling reason not to. To the best of my knowledge no permit holder in my state has ever committed a violent crime with a handgun (to be honest a few have lost their permits due to being stupid).

I'd point out a couple of things on the subject of armed citizenry;

First) Our founding fathers feared democracy possibly more than totalitarianism. They realized that democracy was little more than organized mob rule, hence the idea of a constitutional republic. The second amendment was (as with the rest of the bill of rights) considered "unfinished business", a simple statement of what the original drafters of the constitution had held as "self evident". It was meant to declare that the safety of the State as a whole relied on the ability of it's citizens to defend themselves, each other, and the community at large with whatever weaponry was available at the time. The validity of this idea has not fundamentally changed.

Second) I've carried a pistol on my person most of the time for over 15 years. I have not in that time, even once for a moment considered shooting someone because they "got on my nerves". I have during that time made the conscious decision that I would be the one running towards the gunfire, instead of away. I have on several occasions invested my time hanging around convenience stores late at night shooting the breeze with the clerk when I was uncomfortable with some of the other 'clientele'. I've never gotten a complaint about this habit, and a few 'thank you's'. I rarely turn down a job because the "neighborhood is too rough". I often do work for people who genuinely believe that their life is in danger (I'm a locksmith, by the way), but for the few moments that I'm there I know that it's not so much. (I had one woman actually say to me that she felt safer than she had in years while I was there [she'd been in an abusive relationship for years], and she just couldn't explain it. I didn't bother to.) Whatever any of you might think, I believe that the world around me is just a tad safer because I'm armed.

Third) Those of you who believe that the "Police" give a crap about your safety or are able to in most cases do anything about it are delusional. If you want to believe this fairy tale then go for it. The police in the united states are armed for their own protection and have no responsibility (other than what the bring to the job due to their own convictions) for the safety of individual citizens, and I have no reason to believe that the situation is any different anywhere else. If your police are not armed at all, how can you expect them to be of any assistance to you in a deadly encounter? (I'm not knocking the thousands of police officers who really believe in their work, but most of them will tell you that they just can't be everywhere and that when the S&%$ hits the fan they probably can't help you

finally) Since Cain slew Able, the human race has found no end to the methods by which they might murder each other. Until recent history the victory went to the bigger and the stronger or the Mob. The vast majority of the human race has been for the vast majority of history been slave to whoever was bigger and/or stronger or whoever controlled the Mob. It was not until Sam Colt came along that the idea of all men being equal meant anything. No man is free to any extent further than he is able to defend that freedom. If you think that you will be less dead should you be beaten or stabbed to death than if your shot to death, you are welcome to your opinion. My opinion is that your insane. It's OK, we can still be friends.

BTW, I have lots of friend in both the UK and Canada, and I love them dearly, I just don't think they should not have the option of being able to defend themselves in the most efficient way possible.

[BadAim]

Not being nit picky but it's spelled favor. Hello???

Not in England, mate. They not only talk funny, they spell funny too.

[ATAG_Doc]

Not in England, mate. They not only talk funny, they spell funny too.

I knew that. I was just being silly.

[ElAurens]

Thank you BadAim.

Well said sir.

S!

[BadAim]

sternjaeger - i'd leave this to ruggbutt tbh, as he is doing a far better job of arguing the point, and without resorting to such demeaning terms as you favour. quite what political correctness has to do with guns is utterly beyond me. perhaps it's some kind of leakage from the daily mail, where everything is "PC gone mad", such as this case. rather than an ethos that has pervaded uk law enforcement since... well, pretty much it's inception really.

Ahh, you've reinforced ruggbutt's assertion that "an armed society is a polite society". Sternjaeger just can't be polite because he's been forcibly disarmed, whereas ruggbutt has no such problem.

As far as "political correctness" goes, Titus; here in the states it's source is the same as that which would disarm us, thus the correlation in our minds of the two. I assume Sternjaeger thinks similarly.

[BadAim]

I knew that. I was just being silly.

me too. :P

[baronWastelan]

touche, but that just means we can't bomb people from the sea. plenty enough cruise missiles and the like left.



Don't forget the RAF which can be billeted comfortably in Italian hotels and from there bomb Africa, as they have been doing these past few months. Personally I would much rather live in a hotel in Italy than on a ship, so this represents a major step forward for the British Empire.

[baronWastelan]

Thank you BadAim.

Well said sir.

S!

Agree, and also to all reading this: think about those lovely petite females, who could avoid being robbed, raped and killed if they have a small pistol tucked away discreetly in their purses.

[BadAim]

Agree, and also to all reading this: think about those lovely petite females, who could avoid being robbed, raped and killed if they have a small pistol tucked away discreetly in their purses.

I think of them more than all others. It is the weakest who are benefited most by going armed. An armed woman protecting her children is a creature of a ferocity and deadliness that nature could never match.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think of them more than all others. It is the weakest who are benefited most by going armed. An armed woman protecting her children is a creature of a ferocity and deadliness that nature could never match.

There is a nasty trend in my home state over the last few years where elderly or imfirmed people are subject to home invasions, they inevitably get bashed and even raped in some cases, while the criminals get away with little more than pension money and family heirlooms.

About year ago a bloke of about 80 had to justify his actions for shooting a home invader. The media put him through the ringer until the facts of the incident came through.

The criminal was shot pulling the shotgun from the old guys hands, to get to be shot he and his friends had kicked in the front door, ransacked the house for half an hour and then had to bash down the old guys bedroom door where he had barricaded himself. He even warned the criminals that he was armed.

From my ( and eventually the courts) point of view the old guy did everything reasonably possible to avoid hurting anyone while protecting himself.

Unfortuanately there is a small element of our societies that cannot be reasoned with.

Cheers!

[ElAurens]

In my home state of Ohio in the US we have what's called a Castle law, as in every man's home is his castle.

We no longer have to retreat to the farthest point possible in the home before defending ourself. If someone breaks in, it is assumed he/she is not there to make friends, and defending oneself and one's home is your right.

[unreasonable]

I think I understand the proplem for our US contributors: they probably do not want to come out and say that other peoples do not have the right to decide their own gun laws, since this is so obviously unreasonable, but they worry that the arguments used by other peoples to reach the conclusion that stringent gun controls are a good thing might be applied to the US too, and be used by the government to undermine or limit their current rights to carry arms. So not being content to defend their own gun laws they feel the need to criticise other people's laws as well.

At the extreme, to safeguard the 2nd Amendment from the dreaded "wedge" argument, the rights of all other nations in the world to manage their own affairs according to their own traditions, culture and laws has to be, if not denied outright, denigrated, held up to ridicule and contempt, and condemned as a slippery slope on the road to totalitarian enslavement.

So I would really appreciate it if any of the US contributors would step up to the plate, play the game, man up, stop evading the issue, and state whether or not they believe that the people of the UK, via the mechanism of their own constitution and law, have the self-evident right to limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Come on, you know you want to...;-)

[Wolf_Rider]

down here, the courts have been admonishing the defender and supporting the uninvitied entrant... go figure



guns can be banned, but then the public will turn to blades... ban them and the public will make their own in their sheds.

[ATAG_Doc]

I think I understand the proplem for our US contributors: they probably do not want to come out and say that other peoples do not have the right to decide their own gun laws, since this is so obviously unreasonable, but they worry that the arguments used by other peoples to reach the conclusion that stringent gun controls are a good thing might be applied to the US too, and be used by the government to undermine or limit their current rights to carry arms. So not being content to defend their own gun laws they feel the need to criticise other people's laws as well.

At the extreme, to safeguard the 2nd Amendment from the dreaded "wedge" argument, the rights of all other nations in the world to manage their own affairs according to their own traditions, culture and laws has to be, if not denied outright, denigrated, held up to ridicule and contempt, and condemned as a slippery slope on the road to totalitarian enslavement.

So I would really appreciate it if any of the US contributors would step up to the plate, play the game, man up, stop evading the issue, and state whether or not they believe that the people of the UK, via the mechanism of their own constitution and law, have the self-evident right to limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Come on, you know you want to...;-)

Of course they do. They've chosen this and it isn't ever coming back while there is a civilized government in place.

Lately there seems to be mobs of people not getting along well and I am worried that this could spiral out of the governments control. Then when that happens what then?

Hungry people don't make wise decisions.

[jimbop]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Um, have any of you guys looked at the list? One of my family is in those stats and I wish guns were even harder to get hold of where I live.

[Wolf_Rider]

Guns don't kill people though... people kill people, and the only difference between this happening in the stone age and today is, today we have developed a much more efficient means of doing so.

Until the "why" is recognised and dealt with, we'll only continue to develop even more efficient means of killing each other.

Take the guns away and people will use knives/ swords, take them away and people will use clubs or what is in the cutlery drawer, take that away and they'll resort to what is under the kitchen sink... remove that and they'll turn to grandma's knitting needles. Meanwhile, others have fashioned a workshop in their backyard shed.

[unreasonable]

Of course they do. They've chosen this and it isn't ever coming back while there is a civilized government in place.

Lately there seems to be mobs of people not getting along well and I am worried that this could spiral out of the governments control. Then when that happens what then?

Hungry people don't make wise decisions.

Fair enough, thank you. From some of the posts in the thread I was beginning to wonder.....

As for the situation getting out of control - I do not think that is likely, provided that the people at large are not armed, which is I imagine the main point of difference between the US and European views.

IMHO, the mobs have been mostly apolitical youths out for some excitement, and judging from how fat some of them looked on the TV pictures they were certainly not hungry. Presumably they got bored waiting for the next CloD patch...

Some combination of carrots and sticks will be applied, mostly without any real belief that anything fundamental will change. The underclass will go back to their ghettos. The middle-class opportunist gansta wannabees will go back to their sociology courses at "university". And the bankers and politicians will go back to fleecing the society they have come to believe does not exist.

O tempora, O mores!

(For non-classicists, this translates roughly as "this tempura is tasty, give me some more", a suitable lament for the failings of a multicultural, materialist nation).

[jimbop]

Guns don't kill people though... people kill people, and the only difference between this happening in the stone age and today is, today we have developed a much more efficient means of doing so.

Until the "why" is recognised and dealt with, we'll only continue to develop even more efficient means of killing each other.

Take the guns away and people will use knives/ swords, take them away and people will use clubs or what is in the cutlery drawer, take that away and they'll resort to what is under the kitchen sink... remove that and they'll turn to grandma's knitting needles. Meanwhile, others have fashioned a workshop in their backyard shed.

True but the efficiency with which guns do the job is the point. You can't honestly be saying that if you replaced all the firearms with knitting needles that there would be as many homicides, surely?

[Wolf_Rider]

Its not the body count which is the problem (the body count is the symptom)... the problem is "why" there is a need for the body count in the first place.

Replace guns for knitting needles? look in the kitchen cabinet and you'll find much more efficent means than a gun

[jimbop]

Its not the body count which is the problem (the body count is the symptom)... the problem is "why" there is a need for the body count in the first place.

Replace guns for knitting needles? look in the kitchen cabinet and you'll find much more efficent means than a gun

Couldn't agree more about it being a symptom but I certainly do see the body count as being a problem. Should be reduced where possible.

[Wolf_Rider]

personally, I don't see a need for a body count in the first place, and the problem won't be stopped until the cause is found.. and the cause isn't the weapon, the cause is why it is being employed.

[Vengeanze]

If Mr. unreasonable was electable he'd get my vote. :-D

[Skoshi Tiger]

[QUOTE=unreasonable;323490]

IMHO, the mobs have been mostly apolitical youths out for some excitement, and judging from how fat some of them looked on the TV pictures they were certainly not hungry. Presumably they got bored waiting for the next CloD patch...

Some combination of carrots and sticks will be applied, mostly without any real belief that anything fundamental will change. The underclass will go back to their ghettos. The middle-class opportunist gansta wannabees will go back to their sociology courses at "university". And the bankers and politicians will go back to fleecing the society they have come to believe does not exist.
QUOTE]

Ah! So what your saying is the hash gun laws in the UK are designed to maintain the centurys old class based system and repress the majority of the population? Maybe the guys in the US have got it right after all?

[Sternjaeger II]

Ahh, you've reinforced ruggbutt's assertion that "an armed society is a polite society". Sternjaeger just can't be polite because he's been forcibly disarmed, whereas ruggbutt has no such problem.

As far as "political correctness" goes, Titus; here in the states it's source is the same as that which would disarm us, thus the correlation in our minds of the two. I assume Sternjaeger thinks similarly.

Yep, my perspective in this thread is the one of the guy that was raised in a country where, albeit not as much as in the States, there's the possibility of owning firearms (carrying them around on your person is not that simple though), moving to a country where the laws and the stupidity of politicians did a lot of damage to the culture and rights of citizen.

Let me give you an example: a couple of years ago I went to a militaria fair in Bedford, there were LOADS of deactivated weapons, the cherry on top was a Mauser Gewehr 98 in mint conditions, coming straight from the Mauser museum in Germany and de-activated so it could be sold. Now what sort of moron who likes collecting firearms would have them deactivated?! It's something so ridiculous it boggles my mind! It's like buying a Ferrari with NO engine inside, what's the bloody point besides masturbation??

It's the bottomline hypocrisy lingering here that drives me nuts: if you go to Beltring you will be in ACRES of militaria stalls, hundreds of people walking around in full uniforms and blank firing guns, tanks and cannons, heck they even re-enact battles! But talk about working firearms and they all look the other way.. it's INSANE, how can you be so much into that, wearing a Nazi uniform, firing blanks against other figurants and then calling people who use working firearms crazies?!

There were a couple of lads with bandaged thumbs, victims of the "Garand bite", which could have avoided it if they knew how to handle a rifle, even if deactivated.


Truth is that the crime rate in this country is very low, and it's mostly petty stuff that could be avoided if Police did actually behave like a police force, not your patronising friends. Go down to London East at night, or in the rough areas of Manchester and Liverpool, and see how safe it feels. And no, I wouldn't feel much safer with a gun at my side, I would feel safer is police here wasn't a gross joke.

My long term plan is to bring here all the firearms that are deemed as legal, I have some 12+ carabines from WW1 and WW2 that I like to use, keep clean and look at, because they REALLY represent what it meant to go to war, more than prancing about like a tit dressed up in an uniform. I have taken several UK friends to the shooting range and they all defined it a changing experience, some of them even started going regularly.

As for those worried of crazy people with guns: a crazy person will be crazy with or without a gun, if he wants to kill you he'll do it with any possible mean, I'd rather have the chance to put him down at a distance with one round that come to physical contact, which could get very ugly, but then again, if you never found yourself in a fight for your life situation I doubt you could understand.

Once again, as long as the law allows me to own firearms, I will. And to the American friends here, you should hear the horror stories of the thousands of people handing in their guns when the ban got stricter: thousands of semiauto rifles and pistols handed in and destroyed.. utter insanity..

[von Pilsner]

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence)

England & Wales 1.45
United States 8.55

After researching one statistic on one page of wikipedia for about 35 seconds it would seem we either have a higher percentage of homicidal folks in the USA, gun availability does matter, random internet statistics don't tell the whole story, some other variables (standard of living, industrialization, political climate) change things dramatically, or our societies are a lot different than I thought.

Maybe if it were 5.9 times more likely you would be murdered you'd want to own a gun too.... (I own 2 :)) conversely if I lived in a society where guns and homicide were less common I probably would not care if I owned guns or not (ok, shooting targets is pretty fun).

[drewpee]

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

[raaaid]

haha a good friends in the states told me he would move to europe
according to him the homicide rate was bigger than born rate(probably not ture)

[Sternjaeger II]

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

erm, how do you think we haven't killed each other after WW2 so far? The "peaceful" United Kingdom has some 226 nuclear warheads, enough to obliterate this planet a couple of times..

Since the end of WW2 peace among the "important countries" has been maintained by a balance of firepowers, not by smiles and civilised manners.

[Sternjaeger II]

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

guns are just a weapon, not the weapon. They can be used in an offensive manner as much as they can be used in a defensive one, and they're the ultimate balance: no matter how strong you are, if I have a gun and you're bigger than me, I win.

The example you make is an exception just like firearms given to armed response squads: they have a specific purpose. Still, cars and reckless driving kill more than firearms.

[Sternjaeger II]

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence)

England & Wales 1.45
United States 8.55

After researching one statistic on one page of wikipedia for about 35 seconds it would seem we either have a higher percentage of homicidal folks in the USA, gun availability does matter, random internet statistics don't tell the whole story, some other variables (standard of living, industrialization, political climate) change things dramatically, or our societies are a lot different than I thought.

Maybe if it were 5.9 times more likely you would be murdered you'd want to own a gun too.... (I own 2 :)) conversely if I lived in a society where guns and homicide were less common I probably would not care if I owned guns or not (ok, shooting targets is pretty fun).

sorry, is it homicide or homicide committed by means of a gun? You'd be surprised to see how many people kill others with other means than a gun.

[winny]

Number of Police officers killed in the UK since 1900 = Around 160.

Number of Police officers killed in the USA last year = Around 150.
(150 seems to be the average per year, the 70's averaged around the 190/200 mark)

I don't want guns completely legalised in my country just because someone wants to collect them. Or gets off on shooting stuff..

If someone wanted to attack me with a knife I'd at least be close enough to defend myself.

I've had a gun pulled on me twice in my life, I still don't feel the need to own one.

[unreasonable]

sorry, is it homicide or homicide committed by means of a gun? You'd be surprised to see how many people kill others with other means than a gun.

Mortality [US]

All homicides
•Number of deaths: 18,361
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1

Firearm homicides
•Number of deaths: 12,632
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.2

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2007, tables B, 18
From CDC website

[unreasonable]

If Mr. unreasonable was electable he'd get my vote. :-D

Very kind of you to say so: and so a new revolutionary movement begins.....

Actually, as a single white heterosexual male who has lived in Thailand for a decade or two, I could never withstand the scrutiny of the morality police ;-)

[unreasonable]

[QUOTE=unreasonable;323490]

Ah! So what your saying is the hash gun laws in the UK are designed to maintain the centurys old class based system and repress the majority of the population? Maybe the guys in the US have got it right after all?

Firstly, I am not sure that it is useful to speak of them being "designed" at all.

For US law (at least for constitutional law on which other law is based) it is meaningful to speak of design, since we know who the designers were, and through the texts of the laws themselves and various other writings we know much about their deliberate purpose and the intelligent way they went about constructing a system that, they hoped, would realize their goals.

In contrast, in English law a multiplicity of various accretions added over the centuries, driven by the needs and whims of the moment, in accord with the procedural principles of the time. Close scrutiny of judicial decision making, or in particular of debates within the House of Commons (the legislature) will reveal few signs of intelligence or purposeful activity at all, except on those few occasions when the system as a whole is in danger, when a brief spasm of defensive adjustment can be observed.

So while the US law and constitution may be compared to a motor vehicle (in which one passenger controls the steering wheel, another the "gas pedal" and a third the brakes), the UK constitution and law is better described as a termite colony, or perhaps a sponge.

Speaking of purpose in complex evolved systems of this kind is fraught with difficulties, and often leads to fallacy. The argument from design is the most familiar example, but neo-darwinian evolutionists do it too on occasion.

(For instance, we have probably all watched those interminable nature morality tales masquerading as documentaries in which we watch, for example, the antics of the bat eared froogle, whose large twitching ears are described as "perfectly evolved to suit the environment").

Secondly, whether the guys in the US have "got it right" is another matter: it rather depends on what "it" is.

What is wrong, for instance, with "maintain[ing] the centurys old class based system and repress[ing] the majority of the population?" The events of the last few days demonstrate only too clearly what happens when this vital task is neglected.

If in fact the "harsh gun laws" are, or are perceived to be "designed to maintain the centuries old class based system and repress the majority of the population", the fact that they are overwelmingly popular suggests that the vast majority of the population wants and needs to be repressed. :)

This is quite plausible, as the feeling of struggling against a powerful evil force is much more satisfying than facing the mundane challenges of work and family, at least for males. We both have the WOT and the WOD: for those youths too weak, cowardly or intelligent to enter the military there is the war on "the Feds" and "the establishment" as a substitute.

For females, the need for a strong (calm assertive) male dominant presence is obvious, as shown in "The Dog Whisperer", or indeed in the charming american romance featured in a previous posting. In the US the dames feel safe when their man has a gun. In the UK the gals feel safe when no-one has a gun.

On the class system: better just to think of it as a hugely entertaining national pastime.

[nearmiss]

The right to bear arms is written into US constitution. If your country has no such right, that is what it.

If you have rights and they are written in a contract with the people of your nation you should respect those contracts with the people enough to know those rights are substantial. You should never yield up any of your rights for the so-called common good.

Historically, enforcement of law was never a problem in Britain. The ultimate authority is based in the reprisal of the law, so to speak. It doesn't matter if a Bobbie had a gun, authorities for centuries have put criminals into dreadful prisons, made indentured servants out them, put them into the tower...etc. An accusation was enough to make the worst of the lot tremble.

Nowadays, liberal and so-called equitable treatment of criminals with lesser punishments will require Bobbie to have a gun or he'll get wasted.
When the authority and enforcement of law at the highest levels is compromised the tougher it will be for the man on the street.

Fact is... you will see more Bobbie with guns. Only when criminal punishments becomes extremely severe will you see a casual policeman walking and whistling along the lane, swinging his club like a band leaders baton.

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

it's too bad a lot of politicians over here see guns as children's playtoys and therefore forbid people to have them.

to me it's a bad way of thinking. And the examples are getting worse and worse...

[Sternjaeger II]

Number of Police officers killed in the UK since 1900 = Around 160.

Number of Police officers killed in the USA last year = Around 150.
(150 seems to be the average per year, the 70's averaged around the 190/200 mark)

So? I still don't get how this is related to the possession of firearms.


I don't want guns completely legalised in my country just because someone wants to collect them. Or gets off on shooting stuff..
Well that's very selfish, discriminatory and anti-democratic of you, and again, you can still legally detain and use firearms in this country. What if tomorrow they told you "we're banning videogames because they incite violence", would you be cool with that? And what's next? Uh yeah I tell you what, the Government proposed to BLOCK all social networks in case of further riots! Ha! Anything else? Shall we also lube our backholes? Why is the law abiding citizen that need to pay for the deficiencies of our policing system? Wake up!!!


If someone wanted to attack me with a knife I'd at least be close enough to defend myself.


yeah, if the person is bigger and stronger than you you don't stand a bloody chance. Ever heard the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"?

I've had a gun pulled on me twice in my life, I still don't feel the need to own one.

Unfortunately I had the same experience in civilian life (won't even bother mentioning the military one), but this has nothing to do with the right to legally own arms. In one of the occasions of civilian life I had my Glock 23 in .40S&W with me, but I didn't do anything stupid because there was a lot of children and people in the supermarket as it was getting robbed. I'm afraid that, like many other cases, you're just afraid of something you actually don't know anything about.

The right to bear arms is written into US constitution. If your country has no such right, that is what it.

If you have rights and they are written in a contract with the people of your nation you should respect those contracts with the people enough to know those rights are substantial. You should never yield up any of your rights for the so-called common good.

Historically, enforcement of law was never a problem in Britain.

Yeah, Northern Ireland was just a little accident :rolleyes:

The ultimate authority is based in the reprisal of the law, so to speak. It doesn't matter if a Bobbie had a gun, authorities for centuries have put criminals into dreadful prisons, made indentured servants out them, put them into the tower...etc. An accusation was enough to make the worst of the lot tremble.

Nowadays, liberal and so-called equitable treatment of criminals with lesser punishments will require Bobbie to have a gun or he'll get wasted.
When the authority and enforcement of law at the highest levels is compromised the tougher it will be for the man on the street.

Fact is... you will see more Bobbie with guns. Only when criminal punishments becomes extremely severe will you see a casual policeman walking and whistling along the lane, swinging his club like a band leaders baton.

the really shocking thing is hearing the police forces of London, one of the most important cities in the world, which has been subject to terroristic attacks in the past and is gonna host the 2012 olympics, that they were not ready cos they didn't expect something like that to happen.. seriously?!?! You call that a police force?!?! Again, good luck if the world goes upside down..

[Sternjaeger II]

at least Cameron's gang now have changed the law for self defence in your household, cos if you killed or injured an intruder before you would still be charged with assault and manslaughter, go figure!!

[unreasonable]

Shall we also lube our backholes?

Well many of the older generation have seen Deliverance;

Mountain Man: "I bet you can squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee! "
Bobby: "Weee!"

So we have an idea whose backholes need lubing.

Well worth getting/downloading BTW: a horrible illustration of the consequences of allowing the underclass to keep and bear arms.

[Sternjaeger II]

Well many of the older generation have seen Deliverance;

Mountain Man: "I bet you can squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee! "
Bobby: "Weee!"

So we have an idea whose backholes need lubing.

Well worth getting/downloading BTW: a horrible illustration of the consequences of allowing the underclass to keep and bear arms.

Man,that sounds so much Germany 1920-30...

[unreasonable]

Man,that sounds so much Germany 1920-30...

No, it is set in the Georgia backwoods.... Oh! :o I see, you are hinting that I am sounding like a communist! Or is it a nazi? Or a decadent Weimar republican trying vainly to prevent the spread of armed vigelanteism? Do tell.

[Sternjaeger II]

No, it is set in the Georgia backwoods.... Oh! :o I see, you are hinting that I am sounding like a communist! Or is it a nazi? Or a decadent Weimar republican trying vainly to prevent the spread of armed vigelanteism? Do tell.

Honestly man,I don't think I need to say anything else at all,you said enough..

The equation "owning a firearm=being a vigilante" really shows how narrow minded you are on the subject.

[BadAim]

It is an unfortunate truth that most men would much prefer to be slaves so long as the food is good and the taskmaster isn't too harsh.

Chairman Mao said it best; "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun"

Those who would take your liberty must first get your guns, whether or not you hand them over voluntarily is irrelevant.

[BadAim]

Man,that sounds so much Germany 1920-30...

The sad thing is that this is exactly how liberal/socialist politicians think.

[Sternjaeger II]

It is an unfortunate truth that most men would much prefer to be slaves so long as the food is good and the taskmaster isn't too harsh.

Chairman Mao said it best; "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun"

Those who would take your liberty must first get your guns, whether or not you hand them over voluntarily is irrelevant.

Exactly.. Sheep,nothing more nothing less.

Why thinking when there's a Government and public opinion that does it for you? I was hoping that these riots would at least bring back some common sense in public opinion,but all they did was a witch hunt for the people responsible for this,not the cause,which is an inadequate policing.

[Sternjaeger II]

You know,at first I was surprised that people with such mentality could be in this forum,but then again to them the Battle Of Britain is either a game or something that was fought with good intentions,not firearms.. It's a contradiction in terms that is beyond me.

[nearmiss]

World is full of hypocrisy and most originates in the political realm.

Hitler was elected 1933 98% of majority vote is my understanding.

Hitler did his own will. I was always angered by the fact that the whole world blamed the German people for the holocaust and other atrocities.

Sadly, there is no prevention of atrocities by a population subject to military and political powers. The German people could have done little or nothing to prevent any of the horrible issues associated with Nazi.

The German people were powerless against their own government and well armed armies.

People did resist, but they had to do so in clandestine and non-confrontational manner.

Without guns in the hands of the people, any kind of gun or similar enforcement mechanism,what can anyone do against armed and trained tyrants. Talk doesn't get it, reasonable debate and discussion...LOL

I say if your country has laws against guns you want to do everything you can to keep a stable caring government in power. History and current issues in the world indicate those without guns --- suffer

[Sternjaeger II]

Completely agree Nearmiss.

It's the obstinate denial that leaves me flabbergasted really. Where r u from btw?

[CWMV]

It is an unfortunate truth that most men would much prefer to be slaves so long as the food is good and the taskmaster isn't too harsh...

This made me think of some very powerful words, written by brave men for the benefit of us all.

"all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[Pudfark]

The value of a "firearm"?
The value of a "knife"?
The value of sheep?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3751608/Five-killed-in-Jersey-attack.html

How much do you value yourself?
Others?

[winny]

So? I still don't get how this is related to the possession of firearms.


Well that's very selfish, discriminatory and anti-democratic of you, and again, you can still legally detain and use firearms in this country. What if tomorrow they told you "we're banning videogames because they incite violence", would you be cool with that? And what's next? Uh yeah I tell you what, the Government proposed to BLOCK all social networks in case of further riots! Ha! Anything else? Shall we also lube our backholes? Why is the law abiding citizen that need to pay for the deficiencies of our policing system? Wake up!!!


Just because I don't agree with you my opinion is undemocratic?

WTF?

I think that that the very fact you call someone undemocratic simply for having the opposite opinion is the antethesis of Democracy - I am a citizen of the UK and am entitled to a view. STFU!

I'm talking about guns not video games, twitter or buggery.

I don't want guns to be common in my country, I'm not here to debate it I'm here to say what I think. Is that ok with you Mr democracy?

[Vengeanze]

Chairman Mao said it best; "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun"

He also said:
"In order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."

So you guys are trying to disarm the world? :)

[Vengeanze]

The right to bear arms is written into US constitution.
Adopted 1791.

You should never yield up any of your rights for the so-called common good.
So what's your take on the patriot act?

Only when criminal punishments becomes extremely severe will you see a casual policeman walking and whistling along the lane, swinging his club like a band leaders baton.
...or perhaps when gun regulation makes it near impossible for villains to obtain a gun. :-D

[ElAurens]

...or perhaps when gun regulation makes it near impossible for villains to obtain a gun. :-D

You are living in a dream world if you believe that sir.

And why add the date of adoption of the US Constitution? Are you implying that somehow our freedoms are out of date?

If so you deserve the cess pool that your country is turning into.

[arthursmedley]

If so you deserve the cess pool that your country is turning into.

Sweden is turning into a cesspool!?

[Vengeanze]

You are living in a dream world if you believe that sir.
Just saying that there are other alternatives than arming every citizen.

And why add the date of adoption of the US Constitution? Are you implying that somehow our freedoms are out of date?
Implying that conditions changes over time.
Here's a pic to illustrate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/drama/images/18thc.jpg

If so you deserve the cess pool that your country is turning into.
U taught me two things with that sentence: I have learnt what a cesspool is and that you have no clue about the state of my country.

[Vengeanze]

You know,at first I was surprised that people with such mentality could be in this forum

So I need an 88 in my backyard to play Call Of Duty or a restaurated Spit with live rounds to play CloD?

Speaking of playing wargames (like CloD); am I right when I assume you play CloD? If so, then this strikes me as a bit funny, if I may:

It's the bottomline hypocrisy lingering here that drives me nuts: if you go to Beltring you will be in ACRES of militaria stalls, hundreds of people walking around in full uniforms and blank firing guns, tanks and cannons, heck they even re-enact battles! But talk about working firearms and they all look the other way.. it's INSANE, how can you be so much into that, wearing a Nazi uniform, firing blanks against other figurants and then calling people who use working firearms crazies?!

Btw, you're aware that your nick could be misintepreted, right?
Stern = Rear
jaeger = Hunter
;)

[Sternjaeger II]

Just because I don't agree with you my opinion is undemocratic?

WTF?



you must have been asleep at school when they explained the concept of democracy: you said "I don't want guns completely legalised in my country just because someone wants to collect them. Or gets off on shooting stuff.." I don't want the Xfactor or Jordan on TV, but alas, I have to take it, because there's a part of this democratic country that likes that s**t. You don't even know what it is that you don't want.


I think that that the very fact you call someone undemocratic simply for having the opposite opinion is the antethesis of Democracy - I am a citizen of the UK and am entitled to a view. STFU!

whereas inviting me to shut up is very democratic uh? How old are you, Winny? 12?


I'm talking about guns not video games, twitter or buggery.

I don't want guns to be common in my country, I'm not here to debate it I'm here to say what I think. Is that ok with you Mr democracy?

Unfortunately for you guns are common, as you said you've been at gunpoint twice (very bad luck btw, even in Manchester), and again, I have nothing against your choice of not having guns, chapeau to you and your sense of security based on this farse of society. I, on the other hand, am a collector, and I believe I have the same rights that you have to exercise my hobbies. You don't agree? Tough.

Uh and I tell you what, you can come with me to the shooting range at any time and try it for yourself, you'd be amazed on what you'd see.

[Sternjaeger II]

So I need an 88 in my backyard to play Call Of Duty or a restaurated Spit with live rounds to play CloD?

erm no, it's not the point.. Are you 12 as well?

The point is that you can't play games that gravitate around violence and make of violence their main theme, then being a anti-firearms guy, it's a contradiction in terms. Why playing something that advocates the use of firearms if you're against them? It makes me think of a Jewish Nazi militaria collector I once met, I just couldn't understand what the heck that was all about :confused:


Speaking of playing wargames (like CloD); am I right when I assume you play CloD? If so, then this strikes me as a bit funny, if I may:

why would it be funny?


Btw, you're aware that your nick could be misintepreted, right?
Stern = Rear
jaeger = Hunter
;)

..as I said, you must be 12, both because of your infantile sense of humour and because you can't even spell your nickname properly.. it's vengeance, not vengeanze, genius..

[MD_Titus]

Not being nit picky but it's spelled favor. Hello???
*facepalm*

no it's not. similarly armour is what knights wear, football is played with a round ball, and you're meant to drive on the left.
Yep, my perspective in this thread is the one of the guy that was raised in a country where, albeit not as much as in the States, there's the possibility of owning firearms (carrying them around on your person is not that simple though), moving to a country where the laws and the stupidity of politicians did a lot of damage to the culture and rights of citizen.


dude, go back there if you want to own a shedload of firearms. if i want to smoke pot all day i'll move to holland. if i wanted to be teetotal i'd move to the UAE.

also, ftr, the politicians acted after people with licensed firearms went mental and killed dozens of people. this is when you could own firearms if you wanted, so you can't even say that is why people died - because no one else was armed to intervene.
at least Cameron's gang now have changed the law for self defence in your household, cos if you killed or injured an intruder before you would still be charged with assault and manslaughter, go figure!!
hmm.

not sure you're quite aware of the changes tbh.

it used to be that you could defend yourself with whatever came to hand, and as long as they a. didn't have their back to you fleeing, and b. you hadn't ejected them from your property and then gone back inside for the first thing that came to hand. if you either killed or injured them, and neither a. nor b. was the case, it was classed as self defence.

now you can have a baseball bat or whatever by your bed with the express purpose of defending yourself. a. and b. still apply.
You know,at first I was surprised that people with such mentality could be in this forum,but then again to them the Battle Of Britain is either a game or something that was fought with good intentions,not firearms.. It's a contradiction in terms that is beyond me.
it is something that happened 70 years ago which we recreate with pixels. not sure quite what your point is.
you must have been asleep at school when they explained the concept of democracy: you said "I don't want guns completely legalised in my country just because someone wants to collect them. Or gets off on shooting stuff.." I don't want the Xfactor or Jordan on TV, but alas, I have to take it, because there's a part of this democratic country that likes that s**t. You don't even know what it is that you don't want.

whereas inviting me to shut up is very democratic uh? How old are you, Winny? 12?

Unfortunately for you guns are common, as you said you've been at gunpoint twice (very bad luck btw, even in Manchester), and again, I have nothing against your choice of not having guns, chapeau to you and your sense of security based on this farse of society. I, on the other hand, am a collector, and I believe I have the same rights that you have to exercise my hobbies. You don't agree? Tough.

Uh and I tell you what, you can come with me to the shooting range at any time and try it for yourself, you'd be amazed on what you'd see.

seems you're off on it as well. the british public called for handguns and assault weapons to be banned. democracy in action, pretty much.

you have a right to exercise your hobbies where they do not contravene the law, nor spirit of the law of the land.


and then to cap it all you start calling people 12 year olds, whilst simultaneously missing the difference between playing make believe pew pew computer games... and actually shooting someone dead.

jesus.

given your display here, i'm damn glad they restrict your access to firearms.

[MD_Titus]

You are living in a dream world if you believe that sir.

And why add the date of adoption of the US Constitution? Are you implying that somehow our freedoms are out of date?

If so you deserve the cess pool that your country is turning into.

and that's a bit strong el, i'm surprised you've said that really.

*is disappointed*

[nearmiss]

So what's your take on the patriot act?

It is unconstitutional

...or perhaps when gun regulation makes it near impossible for villains to obtain a gun.

There are still states in the US where you can buy and trade guns at local guns shows without government paperwork.

You can buy semi-automatic weapons as well.

This thread is getting very close to political discussion, re-read what you are posting. Or... this thread may have run it's course for the topic.

[BadAim]

It's really kind of getting nasty here. It can be quite frustrating to get
something that you're passionate about across to someone who's contrary view is
just as passionate.

I don't really think the name-calling is necessary or fruitful. It's certainly
not conducive to getting a point across, it only escalates a perfectly good
argument into a fight. I'd rather enjoy a nice argument on the internet that
does not break down into a fight, it would be such a rare and precious thing

I think it might be a good idea to define some terms.

Those who advocate the use of firearms for self defense are usually arguing the
case for self defense it's self, not so much for firearms themselves (that most people who actually keep firearms for personal defense are or become enthusiasts and enjoy their guns as a piece of sporting equipment really muddies up the issue) It is a simple fact that when it comes right down to it, at the point where the shit is hitting the fan, nothing get's the job of self defense done like a firearm. nothing.

To the point of a portion of the population of a given country/ province/ state/ what have you taking away from another portion of the population what they consider to be a right; nothing could be more democratic. Democracy is little more than mob rule with government backing (If I've said it before, it bears repeating. You can put all the lipstick on that pig you like, it doesn't change things). This is why the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, so that the rights of all the people might be protected from the majority while still providing for majority rule. (I will grant that we've not done a bang up job of it all of the time, but the concept still works well)

I understand that passions can run hot on this subject, but lets do try to keep it civil guys.

[BadAim]

It's rather funny that while I was writing the previous thread, I ran out to the store to get some chips, and I clipped a .45 to my belt without a second thought. I suppose that many of you might find it strange. I find it strange that people would jump out of a perfectly good aircraft for fun, but they do.

Firearms are not the cause of the need for firearms. They're simply not. Human nature is the cause of the need for firearms. It is what it is. Firearms don't cause lowlife dirtbags to be lowlife dirtbags, lowlife dirtbags are lowlife dirtbags because it is in their nature to be lowlife dirtbags, it is not the fault of law abiding firearm owners that the aforementioned lowlife dirtbags would misappropriate the one weapon that makes the little old lady next door fully the equal of the biggest and the baddest of the lowlife dirtbags in the land.

I don't argue anyone's right to feel how they feel. I argue their right to inflict their feelings on their fellow citizens.

[ruggbutt]

It is a simple fact that when it comes right down to it, at the point where the shit is hitting the fan, nothing get's the job of self defense done like a firearm.
Once "phasers" or something similar become the norm firearms as we know it will not be taken as seriously as they are currently. There are insane amounts of knife attacks, bludgeonings and other crimes like that in countries where firearms aren't readily available. There are shootings as well. Shootings you say? But aren't firearms illegal? So is drugs, rape, murder, child molestation, etc......

Those of you who don't want or care to own firearms more power to you. In fact, my American bretheren who don't own them I invite you to put a plaque or sign in your yard stating that your home has no firearms in it. Get back to me later about how well that's working out for you. Seriously though, I can see why some people don't like guns especially the Euros. That's fine as well AFAIC. Your government doesn't trust you and you've allowed that for so long that you've made your bed. Now you gotta lie in it. But as typical socialists you want everyone else to not be able to have the means to protect themselves. That's the difference between an American constitutionalist and a socialist (regardless of where they're from). As long as you don't bother me with your gun I'm ok with you having it. I don't care if you wanna have sex with another man. I don't care if you wanna do drugs and stay stoned all day. As long as you're not driving my kid's school bus or are on the road endangering others more power to you.

That's what a lot of you Euros don't "get". Gun owners (and Americans in general) have a long history with firearms. To the core we embrace what created this country. Our attitude was that a bunch of farmers could stand up to the greatest military power on earth and kick them off of our land. Our continent. We did that and we are taught that in school as young children. We have many more non-gun owners in this country that are ambivalent about gun ownership than there are socialist/left wingers that want to ban all firearms. I live in Phoenix, where you can carry concealed or open anywhere with no permit. We've been able to carry open since before I was born (and I'm class of '81 in high school...). In the 90's when I was competing professionally I had hair to my waist and every time I went into my bank I was carrying openly. No one ever called the police. No one was scared. And that's what the rest of the world doesn't "get". There are infinitely more people who are responsible with their ownership of firearms than there are people who are responsible with their driver's licenses. When was the last time you saw a news report where someone was drunk and went shooting? How about drunk and driving?

Regardless of the definition that a firearm "is for killing" (it's not, I have more experience with them than most of Europe does. And that's me alone) it's not. I've shot much more paper and steel targets than I have human beings. When the majority of people in this country buy a gun, it's for self defense. Period. There are millions of examples in this country every year where the mere presence of a firearm has stopped a crime from happening. I've personally held criminals at gunpoint for the police. Had I not been there, those people would have gone on to continue their crime spree. A shot wasn't fired in those instances. I fired a shot that saved my life when I was a teenager. The crime he was going to commit (murder) was stopped as well. There are many stories like mine and having "been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the hat" no one can convince me that firearms ownership is bad. Frankly, I'm more scared of someone with a knife than a gun, especially when they're within 3 meters of me. The "rule" of 3 regarding gun altercations (3 rounds, 3 meters, 3 seconds) applies to knife wielding assailants. The bad guy can close the distance of 3 meters in well less than 3 seconds. I'm not sure if anyone has ever seen in person the results of a knife fight, but it's utterly gruesome. I've witnessed someone shoot themselves and there's absolutely no comparison. A competent individual with a sharp blade can kill and do more damage in a shorter time frame than someone can with a gun.

Even if you could remove all guns from the face of the earth with a swipe of your hand, people will default back to edged implements. Blunt objects. Gasoline and matches. Even an amateur can kill more people with a car in one fell swoop than someone with a full auto AK-47. I don't like that there's violence in the world. I don't like that someone could come into my home looking for money and wishing to do harm to me and my loved ones. I wish we could all walk thru fields of daisies and love our neighbors, all of them. I also wish I was a billionaire. But that's not the reality, is it? The reality is that should a bad man try to harm me, someone I love or even someone I don't know that I'm in the presence of I will drop them like a rabid dog. No questions asked. The law allows me to. Because we cannot trust in the police to protect us. We cannot trust in our government to protect us. They don't even have the responsibility to protect us. Don't believe me? Try suing the cops for not looking out for your best interests. Nope, I'll handle the situation myself. I was born in the Wild West: Phoenix, Arizona. Where we were taught as children (in school) desert survival. How to spot the poisonous snake. How to survive the inhospitable outlying areas where we live. And we also have the tools to provide safety for ourselves. Not all make the choice and that's fine. But it's a choice that's available to all.

[ATAG_Doc]

"Okay, well, check this out. First of all, you're throwing too many big words at me. Okay, now because I don't understand them, I'm gonna take them as disrespect." (40 year old virgin movie) lol

[Wolf_Rider]

we've seen the epitome of why religious and political discussion is not allowed (and rightly so)... and, I wonder how the locals are getting on in Jersey (UK) this morning. (this may seem to be a bit cold but it reinforces the facts mentioned already - guns don't kill people, people kill people.)



oh, and the right to bear arms? ... those poor bears

http://randomindependent.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/bear-arms.png?w=651&h=489 just to throw a bit of humour in :)

[winny]

you must have been asleep at school when they explained the concept of democracy: you said "I don't want guns completely legalised in my country just because someone wants to collect them. Or gets off on shooting stuff.." I don't want the Xfactor or Jordan on TV, but alas, I have to take it, because there's a part of this democratic country that likes that s**t. You don't even know what it is that you don't want.

whereas inviting me to shut up is very democratic uh? How old are you, Winny? 12?

Unfortunately for you guns are common, as you said you've been at gunpoint twice (very bad luck btw, even in Manchester), and again, I have nothing against your choice of not having guns, chapeau to you and your sense of security based on this farse of society. .

Democracy is about majority. I don't know of any real major opposition to the current UK gun laws. It's a minority that are affected by it.

Anyway this isn't an argument about democracy, it's about guns. (you keep wandering off..) TV, Jordan..? again you're in a minority, both are hugely popular (I don't understand why either).

Like I said, I've come to a decision, I'm happy with the current laws.

I'm 37 by the way.. I told you to shut up because you were being rude..Grow up. I don't agree with you. So what?

Start a movement.. see how much support you get..

[ElAurens]

Sweden is turning into a cesspool!?

I made a bad assumption that Ven was from the UK as he is siding with them.

Oh well, this thread has run it's course anyway.

[ElAurens]

Just saying that there are other alternatives than arming every citizen.


Implying that conditions changes over time.
Here's a pic to illustrate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/drama/images/18thc.jpg


U taught me two things with that sentence: I have learnt what a cesspool is and that you have no clue about the state of my country.

Apologies, I thought you were from the UK, didn't look at the top to see where you are from. And Brits, I do like your country, I've been there long ago (1972) and totally fell for the place, but I probably would not recognise it now.

I still wonder why you feel freedom as granted in our Constitution is out of date though? Times may change but basic human rights do not.

That's why we tossed Mad King George and his rented German thugs out in the first place.

We all have made our choices, and we all have the right to keep them as we see fit. Europeans are used to living in societies where power is exercized from the top down, because of centuries of conditioning being ruled by kings.

We rejected that right from the start and are used to power deriving from the people, and having founding fathers that understood that protecting the people from their government is the single most important aspect of civil life.

But enough of this banter, time for something completely different.

[Wolf_Rider]

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.


-Thomas Jefferson

[AndyJWest]

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.


-Thomas Jefferson

...and when any debate about crime, anywhere on the internet, ends up regurgitating the endless obsession of US politics with guns, there is boredom. There is more to life than shooting people. Get over it...

[Wolf_Rider]

you have me at a bit of a loss there andyjwest... get over what?

[BadAim]

...and when any debate about crime, anywhere on the internet, ends up regurgitating the endless obsession of US politics with guns, there is boredom. There is more to life than shooting people. Get over it...

And when there is any chance for you to regurgitate your endless obsession with political correctness, Andy, you take it. Double standard much?

[unreasonable]

Note how some US contributors to this thread have changed the argument (and I have summarised rather than respond to specific posts because there are so many):

- The main point at issue has been whether restrictive gun laws, in the UK, are, on balance, a good thing, given the context of the recent youth riots.

- Generally US contributors have said that the UK laws are not a good thing, since they mean that good citizens are limited in their ability to defend themselves against bad citizens, or against tyrannical government.

- Generally UK contributors have said that the UK laws are a good thing, since they prefer to be unarmed, which is an increasingly untenable position in an armed society, and they believe that the threats of crime and tyranny are better addressed through the normal workings of constitutional monarchy.

So far so reasonable.....

- There has been no comment from Euro contributors (that I have noticed), about the right of US citizens to decide their own gun laws, own guns in the US, or the desirability or feasibility of the US moving to a gun law system similar to that of the UK.

- In contrast, some US contributors have held up the specific premises of the US political system as though they were universal truths: in particular the premises that disarming the people must necessarily lead to tyranny, and that democracy is always just mob rule.

In my view this point of view fails to take into account the specific history, culture and background of different societies. Just because something is "self-evident" to you, it does not make it "self-evident" to everyone else, or for that matter " a fact". But at least these issue should be capable of being addressed by rational discourse with a minimum of rhetoric.

- And yet some US contributors (if the cap fits, wear it) have reacted angrily as though their own rights are under attack in their own country, and resorted to extraordinary vitriol, questioning the age, motivations, courage and and knowledge of those voicing contrary views through a barrage of ad hominem attacks and smears by association. Shame on you! :mad:

[ruggbutt]

- And yet some US contributors (if the cap fits, wear it) have reacted angrily as though their own rights are under attack in their own country................Shame on you!
What hasn't been discussed and I feel is every bit as important is the surveillance the British people are under. You can't walk 20 feet w/out government cameras watching..............IMHO that's even worse than them being unarmed. Brits can't be trusted, their government's actions say this with it's actions. There's a huge difference in our two cultures but I have to agree that the England of two decades ago isn't the same country. The people seem more "beat down". That was my impression anyway.

[AndyJWest]

And when there is any chance for you to regurgitate your endless obsession with political correctness, Andy, you take it. Double standard much?

I was unaware that not being obsessed with shooting people was anything to do with political correctness. I'd assumed that it was instead entirely normal. Evidently I was wrong...

[baronWastelan]

..as I said, you must be 12, both because of your infantile sense of humour and because you can't even spell your nickname properly.. it's vengeance, not vengeanze, genius..

The name Vengeanze has been around since the beginning, and as an elder deserves our respect, irregardless of his misguided ideals. I remember him from the pre-FB days.

[Sternjaeger II]

*facepalm*

no it's not. similarly armour is what knights wear, football is played with a round ball, and you're meant to drive on the left.

dude, go back there if you want to own a shedload of firearms. if i want to smoke pot all day i'll move to holland. if i wanted to be teetotal i'd move to the UAE.

Another BNP advocate.. sorry, I need to be here and contribute to your welfare society by offering my specialised work skills, paying taxes also to pay a lot of our fellow citizen who live off the state.. I dunno if this "you don't like it? You go back where you came from!" is because of the keyboard hero syndrome or because you really think so, well if you do you're not thinking in a democratic way. Where do you live exactly? In the countryside or in a big city? Pot is all over the place, fortunately illegal firearms aren't.

Again, I can still own and shoot most firearms here, so I don't see what you're on about :confused:



also, ftr, the politicians acted after people with licensed firearms went mental and killed dozens of people. this is when you could own firearms if you wanted, so you can't even say that is why people died - because no one else was armed to intervene.

"people that went mental" was 4 cases in god knows how many years, the fault is not only of the killers, but of the system with which you assign licenses here, there is not a proper psychological assessment. After it happened now the Police shows up at your place and checks on you and the way you store your firearms. It's always after that they adjust things, there is no pro-active thinking. As for why nobody else intervened, read about the scenarios and times when this was done, don't blurt out sentences that you think will go in favour of your argument.

Again, another uninformed sheep that wants to win an argument with nothing.


hmm.

not sure you're quite aware of the changes tbh.

it used to be that you could defend yourself with whatever came to hand, and as long as they a. didn't have their back to you fleeing, and b. you hadn't ejected them from your property and then gone back inside for the first thing that came to hand. if you either killed or injured them, and neither a. nor b. was the case, it was classed as self defence.

now you can have a baseball bat or whatever by your bed with the express purpose of defending yourself. a. and b. still apply.

nope, you would get arrested if you killed the guy or wounded him (cos yes, he could sue you for assault and say "I entered cos the door was open"), again, read your things better. Remember the Indian family in Birmingham who attacked the intruder with a cricket bat?

it is something that happened 70 years ago which we recreate with pixels. not sure quite what your point is.

there you go, denial. Why you think they're putting age ratings on games? Do you think it's morally correct to play games about crime? Or let children play with it? You need to be able to discern from reality and fiction, but some people cant, getting more and more de-sensibilised in front of death and destruction.
Think of GTA series, is that a "good" game? And what if they made a game about rape or paedophilia? would that be ok cos it's only pixels? It should, since you think that homicide is ok if it's a videogame..


seems you're off on it as well. the british public called for handguns and assault weapons to be banned. democracy in action, pretty much.
the British public was brainwashed cos it was convenient to the Government. You really don't get it do you? They don't trust you, they don't want you to be armed, there's cameras everywhere, but they're not there to prevent crime, they're there to gather evidence. It's all an illusion, and the unpredictability of the recent riots shows what could happen.

you have a right to exercise your hobbies where they do not contravene the law, nor spirit of the law of the land.

My hobbies don't contravene the law nor the spirit of the country, but then we're talking about a country where regularly some extremists burn poppies (symbol of all the fallen soldiers here in the UK) and your flags on the streets and you don't do anything about it.. it really boggles my mind!

and then to cap it all you start calling people 12 year olds, whilst simultaneously missing the difference between playing make believe pew pew computer games... and actually shooting someone dead.

jesus.

given your display here, i'm damn glad they restrict your access to firearms.

You, being raised as a selfish individual who follows the flock, think there's no difference between the message given by a videogame and real life, because it's convenient to you, just like the way people get driving licenses here, it's a case of "hey, I need a car" not "hey, driving a car is a responsibility, maybe we should be stricter about it"..

Uh and btw sorry to disappoint, I still have access to firearms, and potentially I could bring most of my own collection here too, if you're not happy about it, talk to your Government..

[Sternjaeger II]

I was unaware that not being obsessed with shooting people was anything to do with political correctness. I'd assumed that it was instead entirely normal. Evidently I was wrong...

you watched far too much Hollywood stuff man. Why you have this fixed idea that if you want to own a gun is just cos you want to shoot someone?! :confused:

[Sternjaeger II]

The name Vengeanze has been around since the beginning, and as an elder deserves our respect, irregardless of his misguided ideals. I remember him from the pre-FB days.

well I've been around since the beginning of IL-2 and I don't see why someone else should mock my nickname, not cos I'm offended, I just don't understand what is the point in this conversation. It's very childish me thinks..

[drewpee]

Fact, the more guns the more people get killed.

London riots were shocking but I find it incredible that so few were injured or killed.

[Vengeanze]

well I've been around since the beginning of IL-2 and I don't see why someone else should mock my nickname, not cos I'm offended, I just don't understand what is the point in this conversation. It's very childish me thinks..

Sorry 'bout that. My intention was to bring a bit of humour in and not to ridicule.

[Sternjaeger II]

Fact, the more guns the more people get killed.

London riots were shocking but I find it incredible that so few were injured or killed.

that's a bit of a generic fact man, according to that theory states like Arizona and Texas should be deserted wastelands..

What was shocking to me about the riots is seeing that they were allowed to carry on for DAYS, and mind you, I'm not blaming the cops on the streets, cos they have no support or adequate directives from the chain of command, it's the system that is utterly inadequate.

[Sternjaeger II]

Sorry 'bout that. My intention was to bring a bit of humour in and not to ridicule.

it's ok, it's just not the way I think, I agree we need to loosen the spirit a bit, but there are other ways to do it. No hard feelings mate :)

[Sternjaeger II]

it's surprising btw how the ones without firearms are way more violent and offensive than the armed ones, tells a lot about the spirits really..

[Vengeanze]

Apologies, I thought you were from the UK, didn't look at the top to see where you are from. And Brits, I do like your country, I've been there long ago (1972) and totally fell for the place, but I probably would not recognise it now.

I still wonder why you feel freedom as granted in our Constitution is out of date though? Times may change but basic human rights do not.

That's why we tossed Mad King George and his rented German thugs out in the first place.

We all have made our choices, and we all have the right to keep them as we see fit. Europeans are used to living in societies where power is exercized from the top down, because of centuries of conditioning being ruled by kings.

We rejected that right from the start and are used to power deriving from the people, and having founding fathers that understood that protecting the people from their government is the single most important aspect of civil life.

But enough of this banter, time for something completely different.

Bad spelling, posts about swedish bikiniteam and polarbears, socialist pov. And I thought I really stood out as a swede. :-D

2nd amendment is not about freedom as a hole but freedom to bear firearms. A major difference there. When talking to pro-guns I get the feeling that they think I want to severely limit their freedom which is totally wrong - just a tiny bit of it. ;-)
Reason I highlight the year the 2nd amendment was adopted is because life was different back then. People needed guns to hunt and protect them selfs from wild animals plus that the lawenforcement system was more or less non existing compared to today.
I totally support the right to bear arms in 1791 and actually I support it for people who live lifes similar to back then (like some distant places like Alaska). However, I can't see the need for a gun when living uptown Dallas (as an example).

[AndyJWest]

Sternjaeger II, you really don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Troll elsewhere.

[Vengeanze]

it's surprising btw how the ones without firearms are way more violent and offensive than the armed ones, tells a lot about the spirits really..

Well, I can't vent myself on the range so I do it on the Internet. :-D

Glad to see the spirit of the old PL coming back. I predict Nearmiss will get his hands full shortly. :-D

[Sternjaeger II]

Sternjaeger II, you really don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Troll elsewhere.

Well fortunately there's people like yourself that can enlighten us poor imbeciles on what's right and wrong.. I, unlike you, motivate my statements with suitable examples, you don't. You remind me of a certain other forum member that was banned recently and adopted your same style.. you, sir, are the troll here.

[Hood]

So:

US - guns are good because you can defend yourself plus it's a right and you don't want to let that right go because that's giving in to the government. High gun crime but less petty crime per capita.

UK - guns are bad but you pretty much never need to defend yourself. Most people have never owned guns or been involved with or threatened with them so don't really mind laws against them as it isn't a big deal. Not a lot of gun crime but more petty crime.

Italy - same as the US with minor differences. Less gun and petty crime.

To summarise I've looked at various websites with various stats. I have no idea if they're correct or not and I can't bother quoting them as everyone can look themselves. For the US I have no doubt that gun crime in some areas is high and in others non existent. You can't really consider the US as in many ways it is 50 different countries.

What was suprising is that per capita Sweden and Switzerland came out quite high up, though with small populations any gun crime will bump the figures up.

And despite the tragedy of Norway and its currently bad gun crime rating (and just typing that makes me curse myself for almost trivialising the tragedy) it is a fantastic beautiful place with friendly, generous and great people; it just has its share of malcontents or lunatics. Just like everywhere else really.

Anyway, this started off about the UK riots. They're done and dusted now and we won't see them again for a long time. Can we shoot this thread in the head?

Hood

[Vengeanze]

What was suprising is that per capita Sweden and Switzerland came out quite high up, though with small populations any gun crime will bump the figures up.

That's another interesting aspect. Most shootings here are done by organised crime having some disputes like HA fighting Bandidos or russian mafia killing off some ukranian mafia.
Very seldom are the victims innocent.
Instead we're going for world domination by selling furnitures with hidden intelligence in em.

[Hood]

That's another interesting aspect. Most shootings here are done by organised crime having some disputes like HA fighting Bandidos or russian mafia killing off some ukranian mafia.
Very seldom are the victims innocent.
Instead we're going for world domination by selling furnitures with hidden intelligence in em.

Hehe I thought the furniture was designed to make people feel stupid trying to put it together?

[Sternjaeger II]

So:

US - guns are good because you can defend yourself plus it's a right and you don't want to let that right go because that's giving in to the government. High gun crime but less petty crime per capita.

UK - guns are bad but you pretty much never need to defend yourself. Most people have never owned guns or been involved with or threatened with them so don't really mind laws against them as it isn't a big deal. Not a lot of gun crime but more petty crime.

Italy - same as the US with minor differences. Less gun and petty crime.

unfortunately that's not the case. Italy has the same rules for firearms like most of Europe, but crime is still there, this to show that guns and crime are not necessarily linked. It's important to identify what kind of crime we're talking about though. Example: mob gangs shooting at each other? Their issue, they do it regularly, problem is that sometimes innocent bystanders get in the way, not always, but it happened. The problem is that you can't eradicate that kind of crime easily, it's not like you go to the local Don Corleone, knock at their door and say "look, from now on no guns, only bar fights, ok?" .

We also have a lot of burglary happening, mostly done by desperate immigrants and low life scum. There have been cases in northern Italy where whole families were tied, beaten and in some cases raped while they were robbing their house, something a la Clockwork Orange. Now after that experience, how can you tell the victims "no need to arm yourselves"? Police can't be everywhere all the time, it's a fact.

And yes, there are the random individuals that shoot themselves and/or the family, but killing crime is mostly done by other means, and knives are still often the weapon of choice, cos they're there and easy to use in a raptus. Shall we ban knives from households? :rolleyes:

As someone else said, guns are just tools, which can also be used to stop and prevent crime.

Example: if I walk on a road and see an armed police officer, I will think twice before getting into the shop and robbing it, because if I do it and get out, I will likely get my a** shot. If I'm in the same situation and see an unarmed police officer, I will be more tempted, cos I can leg it. Fighting crime needs to be an uneven and unfair one, police needs to be stronger than the average criminal, otherwise it's just a farse.

[unreasonable]

What hasn't been discussed and I feel is every bit as important is the surveillance the British people are under. You can't walk 20 feet w/out government cameras watching..............IMHO that's even worse than them being unarmed. Brits can't be trusted, their government's actions say this with it's actions. There's a huge difference in our two cultures but I have to agree that the England of two decades ago isn't the same country. The people seem more "beat down". That was my impression anyway.

I agree fully - I only go back to the UK for a few days every couple of years these days, but when I meet family and friends they are often very angry about constant surveillance. Most of them seem to think it has become widespread because the police and local authorities use it as a stealth-tax mechanism. The feeling is that any minor transgression by a member of the largely law abiding middle classes is criminalized and followed up with full bureaucratic efficiency, while the real criminals are largely left alone since dealing with them is difficult and expensive. I do not remember anyone, however, suggesting that the answer is to arm the citizenry.

Having just watched the PM's speech on the telly, I get the impression that Mr Cameron is trying to tap into that mood and attempt a turn around in the state of British society. I wish him all the best, but suspect that the established forces defending the status quo will be too strong.:(

[Wolf_Rider]

Linking crime and guns... well, all banning (another prohibition) guns does, is to make them more expensive on a blackmarket and give the owners a status.

Gangs still do drive-by attacks in countries where guns are banned.

[Sternjaeger II]

I agree fully - I only go back to the UK for a few days every couple of years these days, but when I meet family and friends they are often very angry about constant surveillance. Most of them seem to think it has become widespread because the police and local authorities use it as a stealth-tax mechanism. The feeling is that any minor transgression by a member of the largely law abiding middle classes is criminalized and followed up with full bureaucratic efficiency, while the real criminals are largely left alone since dealing with them is difficult and expensive. I do not remember anyone, however, suggesting that the answer is to arm the citizenry.

Having just watched the PM's speech on the telly, I get the impression that Mr Cameron is trying to tap into that mood and attempt a turn around in the state of British society. I wish him all the best, but suspect that the established forces defending the status quo will be too strong.:(

that's exactly the spirit unfortunately. Heck, there's vans that go around with cameras to check on who paid road taxes or not! The approach they use is not even intelligent! You know how much time and efforts police forces put into "fighting" against people that drive uninsured and with no road tax paid? It's ridiculous that with the amount of technology we have nowadays we still have this problem, and if you get hit by one of these irresponsible scum your insurance won't even cover for it!

I mean, what's the limit of crap one can get before rebelling? It's insane.

The answer is not to arm the citizens, but to re-design the police forces around the needs of a modern society. The right to have firearms should have nothing to do with public order.

[Sternjaeger II]

Democracy is about majority. I don't know of any real major opposition to the current UK gun laws. It's a minority that are affected by it.

uh, that's a safe assumption: you're basically saying that the majority is right. I'm sure you might have heard of Nazi Germany at some point in your life.. I'm surprised I'm even discussing the sense of democracy really, it's obvious I give people's education for granted..


Anyway this isn't an argument about democracy, it's about guns. (you keep wandering off..) TV, Jordan..? again you're in a minority, both are hugely popular (I don't understand why either).
I wander off to give you examples that are more tangible, since you never had a gun or know what it entitles to own/operate one. The fact that Jordan & Co. are popular tells a lot about the cultural level of this country. They're hugely popular among working class, or "chavs" as you like saying here. So if chavs are the majority, shall we leave the ruling of the country in their hands? Let's change the Union Jack to a Burberry one, innit blud? :rolleyes:


Like I said, I've come to a decision, I'm happy with the current laws.
That's good for you, but in a democracy, even minorities have their right to express their opinion. You're thinking more along the lines of an enlightened regime, which is what we're living in at the moment.


I'm 37 by the way.. I told you to shut up because you were being rude..Grow up. I don't agree with you. So what?

..what are you supposed to mean with that? Is it another case of "I don't know how to answer so I'll shout them to STFU". My dear keyboard hero, there was a time when you would be able to make such aggressive statements, bear the consequences of it (most likely a broken nose), then go home and learn from it. Nowadays you'd probably call the police and report the aggression, or do it from a pc, where you know you're safe and can get the worst out with no consequences. You're the frustrated individual, not me. I can live in a world of guns and know how to behave/handle them, you can't simply cos you've been told it's bad (unless it's Northern Ireland, or Afghanistan, or Iraq) and obey like a good sheep.


Start a movement.. see how much support you get..

I don't need to, I'm fine with the possibilities I'm given at the moment.
Once again, your beloved government just had the courage to propose to shut down social networks in case other riots happen.. don't you really see what they're trying to do to your freedom?? :confused:

[unreasonable]

The answer is not to arm the citizens, but to re-design the police forces around the needs of a modern society. The right to have firearms should have nothing to do with public order.

I am so happy we have found something that we can agree on! :-D

(Unless you are just being satirical :confused:)

[Sternjaeger II]

I am so happy we have found something that we can agree on! :-D

(Unless you are just being satirical :confused:)

I wasn't man, I really mean it. It's obvious that there's something broken in the system and that we all want to live in a safer society (we're not the SPECTRE), it's that we're trying to do it from different approaches.

The right to have a firearm (if deemed suitable for it by a competent panel) should be there regardless of your belief/interest in firearms.

Depriving citizens of their rights won't make a society safer,it will only boost crime, see what happened with proibitionism. What really scares me is that the Orwellian view of modern society is becoming a sad reality in Britain: they don't want you to think, they give you the illusion of freedom and then do what they want with you.

It's sad, but it's a one way ticket to a sad, sad future, human nature is capable of too many perverted things to be contained like that :(

[Vengeanze]

What? We all gonna hug now? Be sure I won't turn my back to that aft hunter. ;-)

We need a new topic!

[Sternjaeger II]

What? We all gonna hug now? Be sure I won't turn my back to that aft hunter. ;-)

We need a new topic!

you better not, got still some IKEA spares I could throw at you ;-)

[Hood]

unfortunately that's not the case. Italy has the same rules for firearms like most of Europe, but crime is still there, this to show that guns and crime are not necessarily linked.

Quite. Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough. Italy allows guns but according to various statistics gun crime and other crimes are less per capita than in the US or UK.

I'm also glad to see that UK citizens are now labelled sheep just because we hold a view that does not agree with those of a minority or non-UK citizens, and that we all like Jordan. I would... but only after a few pints... But I don't drink so that's another stereotype I fail to fit into. It is also disappointing to see democracy via a majority equated to Nazi Germany.

Stern, please dial back your rhetoric because passionate or not you're just starting to insult people that just so happen to hold a different view from you. That their posts lack tact doesn't really excuse anybody responding in kind.

Baaaaah (I would... but only when I'm in my wellies...)

Hood

[ElAurens]

I will offer one reason why myself and my countrymen are so easily upset about the reaction to fireams ownership by those who are not citizens of the US.

There is a resolution working it's way through the United Nations that in effect would ban private ownership of firearms worldwide, thus abrogating the national soverenity (sorry about spelling, not had my tea yet) of signatory nations. American gun owners are very aware of this effort of the UN and it will be a cause of much consternation when the international community trys to interfere with the people and laws of the US.

Have a good week gents, I'm off to work.

[unreasonable]

I wasn't man, I really mean it. It's obvious that there's something broken in the system and that we all want to live in a safer society (we're not the SPECTRE), it's that we're trying to do it from different approaches.

The right to have a firearm (if deemed suitable for it by a competent panel) should be there regardless of your belief/interest in firearms.

Depriving citizens of their rights won't make a society safer,it will only boost crime, see what happened with proibitionism. What really scares me is that the Orwellian view of modern society is becoming a sad reality in Britain: they don't want you to think, they give you the illusion of freedom and then do what they want with you.

It's sad, but it's a one way ticket to a sad, sad future, human nature is capable of too many perverted things to be contained like that :(

Britain is an interesting case indeed - it went from being one of the most free societies (in the particular sense of small government with minimal interference in economic and social life) at the start of WW1 in 1914, to one of the most unfree (except in social life) in the non-communist world, by the end of WW2. 31 years only.

The reason of course was that only this degree of state mobilization of the nations resources could save the country from being gobbled up by the Germans. I am sure most would agree that this was a very real threat, and not some conspiracy theory invented by the establishment in order to boost their power.

Then once this new equilibrium was established, the majority of the population decided that it preferred the new deal. There was no going back.

Personally I can live with that - my take is that all developing countries sooner or later have to co-opt the majority of the population into their economic systems through some mechanism of positive rights and redistribution, otherwise development stops. The UK just did it very abruptly due to war - other states have done it as a response to the threat of revolution or economic stagnation.

The problem then becomes how to manage the moral hazard or free-rider problem, when there is a growing constituency of welfare providers who increase the size of their power base by calling for "more resources", and so are not motivated to restrict the distribution of public funds. Sadly the police seem, in some respects, to have been co-opted by this group.

I am not convinced that there is any answer to this problem except that of a major moral revolution spurred by a religious revival, which brings its own disadvantages, to put it mildly, (speaking as an unbeliever).

[unreasonable]

What? We all gonna hug now? Be sure I won't turn my back to that aft hunter. ;-)

We need a new topic!

Waves of Arguments have been thrown into the fray, their broken bodies now twisting on the barbed wire. Huge armoured Rebuttals have ground the front line Arguments into the mud of no-man's-land, only to fall prey to concealed Ripostes. Meanwhile the special forces - hordes of highly trained Fallacies - have created chaos in the rear areas. The front lines are static. The combatants are exhausted, all reserves committed.

An erie silence falls over the field.

Peace in our time? :-P

[Hood]

I will offer one reason why myself and my countrymen are so easily upset about the reaction to fireams ownership by those who are not citizens of the US.

There is a resolution working it's way through the United Nations that in effect would ban private ownership of firearms worldwide, thus abrogating the national soverenity (sorry about spelling, not had my tea yet) of signatory nations. American gun owners are very aware of this effort of the UN and it will be a cause of much consternation when the international community trys to interfere with the people and laws of the US.

Have a good week gents, I'm off to work.

As opposed to the US involving itself with the people and laws of the international community? There is some innocent hypocrisy there, but as always I'd much rather be with the US than against it and I have admiration for the USA's willingness to put itself in harm's way for the good of everyone.

I agree with your sentiments though I'm pretty sure that the international community will not be able to "force" the US to comply. For my part the UK lost its sovereignty a while back and I just love seeing my taxes not being used in the UK but going to help shore up the economies of other European countries.

Personally I'd go down the Norwegian route of being in the European Economic Area but that's part of a debate that's bigger than this forum and a little bit further away than the riots.

Hood

[ruggbutt]

That's another interesting aspect. Most shootings here are done by organised crime having some disputes like HA fighting Bandidos or russian mafia killing off some ukranian mafia.
Very seldom are the victims innocent.
Instead we're going for world domination by selling furnitures with hidden intelligence in em.
Let's go a bit further and dismiss all black on black crime in the U.S. as well. Because most of that is gang related (organized crime). With that in consideration then we don't have much of a firearms crime rate at all.

And lets be fair, those pesky blacks had it coming. Right? :confused:

[SNAFU]

Cross-reading the thread, looking for some monday amusement, I thank some of you to remind me of what happy enviroment I am living.

A shooting here and there, someone occasionally stabbed in the train, a violant robbery (experience that myself, I am today quite happy I didn´t have easy access to a gun, these days, after being released from hopital - I am not sure if I wouldn´t have used it in revenge), but afterall I do not have to live in a constant state of fear, that I only feel safe, while wearing a gun.

Serving my time during the Kosovo-conflict, I spent enough time wearing guns and rifles in public, day and night, even while shopping. That days I experienced that some usually nice, kind fellows, started to act strange over the time. I thought that the given power corrupted their character and they were somewhat different, while wearing these guns - and switched to normal again, as soon as the weapons, where locked safe again.

Anyhow, the day I would only feel safe in my enviroment with a gun, I would pack all my belongings into my sailing boat a leave. As some of you are talking about freedom, there is no such thing - only the big streams and seas of this world.

So do you really feel that you live a free world, if this world makes you believe, you are safer, with the power of a gun?

[Sternjaeger II]

Quite. Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough. Italy allows guns but according to various statistics gun crime and other crimes are less per capita than in the US or UK.

ah ok, gotcha now.



I'm also glad to see that UK citizens are now labelled sheep just because we hold a view that does not agree with those of a minority or non-UK citizens, and that we all like Jordan. I would... but only after a few pints... But I don't drink so that's another stereotype I fail to fit into. It is also disappointing to see democracy via a majority equated to Nazi Germany.

aawww come on, it was in reply to winny's distorted view of democracy. Plus don't forget that Nazi Germany was born as a democracy anyway, it was deformed into what it was eventually, but nobody was looking for an emperor. The historical problem with regimes and social problems is that we never see that coming, we think of the examples of the past as...well..the past, and don't think for a minute it could happen again. The issue with modern society is that it's a headless beast, it can take the most unexpected directions and get ugly very easily.


Stern, please dial back your rhetoric because passionate or not you're just starting to insult people that just so happen to hold a different view from you. That their posts lack tact doesn't really excuse anybody responding in kind.

Baaaaah (I would... but only when I'm in my wellies...)

Hood

I didn't start the insults war, it was others that stated going on the low levels cos they ran out of arguments. I'm just asking to THINK objectively about the issue, and not give me the ready-made propaganda that you've been fed with so far, simply cos I come from another culture and find some of your decisions extremely contradictory and too bent towards the political correctness.

[ATAG_Doc]

Batter up!

"sales of baseball bats in the U.K. suddenly increased by over 6,000 percent last week"

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110814/COLUMNIST0110/308140027/Richard-J-Grant-Brits-arm-themselves-face-PC-government-s-failure

[Sternjaeger II]

For my part the UK lost its sovereignty a while back and I just love seeing my taxes not being used in the UK but going to help shore up the economies of other European countries.

That's a bit of a generalisation man, you have to trade some of your market with the outside world to survive on this planet. Come to think of it, it's the United Kingdom who's actually racking up money from other countries, thanks to the Tertiary industry. You shut down most of your industries, leaving a lot of people unemployed, your agriculture is only marginally capable of keeping up with the demands of a spoiled market like the one we have (ANY kind of fruit available all time through the year, do we REALLY need that?).. where's the wealth of the UK coming from then? Banking, Blue Chip, research, Services.. you've changed the face of a nation that built its strength on the industrial revolution, with little or no concern for the changes that it would have cost to the population. It's a choice, like many other countries did, the point is how much did the average population have voice in this change?

[Vengeanze]

Batter up!

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110814/COLUMNIST0110/308140027/Richard-J-Grant-Brits-arm-themselves-face-PC-government-s-failure

Cute. :)

[TomcatViP]

Cross-reading the thread, looking for some monday amusement, I thank some of you to remind me of what happy enviroment I am living.

A shooting here and there, someone occasionally stabbed in the train, a violant robbery (experience that myself, I am today quite happy I didn´t have easy access to a gun, these days, after being released from hopital - I am not sure if I wouldn´t have used it in revenge), but afterall I do not have to live in a constant state of fear, that I only feel safe, while wearing a gun.

Serving my time during the Kosovo-conflict, I spent enough time wearing guns and rifles in public, day and night, even while shopping. That days I experienced that some usually nice, kind fellows, started to act strange over the time. I thought that the given power corrupted their character and they were somewhat different, while wearing these guns - and switched to normal again, as soon as the weapons, where locked safe again.

Anyhow, the day I would only feel safe in my enviroment with a gun, I would pack all my belongings into my sailing boat a leave. As some of you are talking about freedom, there is no such thing - only the big streams and seas of this world.

So do you really feel that you live a free world, if this world makes you believe, you are safer, with the power of a gun?

+1

by the way your sentence "only the big streams and seas of this world" could be turned into : Only the big bubbling clouds and clear skies of this world ... ;-)

[SNAFU]

Well, I first thought so and started my glider-plane license when I was 14, until I found out, that you need at least 40+ guys on the ground, for the one guy flying and that you cannot let go a fart, without asking for permisssion or a detailed plan. That wasn´t the freedom I was looking for and I quit after 4 years, just when I was about to make my third wing and turned back to where I came from - the waters... ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14514429

"What we've witnessed this week has been British policing at its absolute best" really?! It's obvious that someone somewhere must have lost a couple of episodes in the saga of modern society..

[Hood]

That's a bit of a generalisation man, you have to trade some of your market with the outside world to survive on this planet. Come to think of it, it's the United Kingdom who's actually racking up money from other countries, thanks to the Tertiary industry. You shut down most of your industries, leaving a lot of people unemployed, your agriculture is only marginally capable of keeping up with the demands of a spoiled market like the one we have (ANY kind of fruit available all time through the year, do we REALLY need that?).. where's the wealth of the UK coming from then? Banking, Blue Chip, research, Services.. you've changed the face of a nation that built its strength on the industrial revolution, with little or no concern for the changes that it would have cost to the population. It's a choice, like many other countries did, the point is how much did the average population have voice in this change?

A slight misunderstanding. I mean that the UK is now providing a lot of money for no gain in order to prevent other European countries going bankrupt in the current Euro crisis eg Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland etc. Trade is very important of course and the change in the UK's industry has its basis in many factors not all of which can be controlled within the UK's borders or by its electorate eg the rise of cheap manufacturing in the far east.

Hood

[Wolf_Rider]

Batter up!

"sales of baseball bats in the U.K. suddenly increased by over 6,000 percent last week"

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110814/COLUMNIST0110/308140027/Richard-J-Grant-Brits-arm-themselves-face-PC-government-s-failure


"Where are the police? They are overwhelmed by the volume and brazenness of the outbreaks. They are also constrained in their response by what appears on the surface to be modern Western restraint, but is in fact a symptom of the modern evasion of social realities that we lamely call “political correctness.” The British welfare system has bred personal responsibility out of the class that has become dependent on it; and the shortsighted immigration system has failed to integrate the foreign communities it has created within."

the author nailed it




and out of the lack of personal responsibiities comes the need for others (higher ups) to be responsible for them... the beginnings of the Orwellian state by stealth

[winny]

uh, that's a safe assumption: you're basically saying that the majority is right. I'm sure you might have heard of Nazi Germany at some point in your life.. I'm surprised I'm even discussing the sense of democracy really, it's obvious I give people's education for granted..

Where did I say I was right? There is no wrong or right in this.. It's about what people, and what I want. I'm expressing my opinion and I cannot be wrong. It's not a matter of fact it's a matter of opinion.

Democracy lets people with different opinions vote for what they want.
Remember, you're the one who told me that because I disagreed with you I was un-democratic - It is not me who has a distroted sense of democracy it is you.




That's good for you, but in a democracy, even minorities have their right to express their opinion. You're thinking more along the lines of an enlightened regime, which is what we're living in at the moment.


...are you for real? You say I have no understanding of democracy? I know that minorities are allowed to express thier opinion - It's a democracy so everyone can, Majority included.


..what are you supposed to mean with that? Is it another case of "I don't know how to answer so I'll shout them to STFU". My dear keyboard hero, there was a time when you would be able to make such aggressive statements, bear the consequences of it (most likely a broken nose), then go home and learn from it. Nowadays you'd probably call the police and report the aggression, or do it from a pc, where you know you're safe and can get the worst out with no consequences. You're the frustrated individual, not me. I can live in a world of guns and know how to behave/handle them, you can't simply cos you've been told it's bad (unless it's Northern Ireland, or Afghanistan, or Iraq) and obey like a good sheep.

What is your problem?

Because I don't agree with you you assume I'm a sheep? I said STFU because you called me "selfish, discriminatory and anti-democratic" and I am none of these things and it made me angry.

I am just expressing my personal view and I decided I wouldn't like more relaxed gun laws in the UK. I like it as it is.



I don't need to, I'm fine with the possibilities I'm given at the moment.
Once again, your beloved government just had the courage to propose to shut down social networks in case other riots happen.. don't you really see what they're trying to do to your freedom?? :confused:

Here you go again.. what have guns and twitter got to do with each other?


I have the freedom to not want more guns in the UK - You are a hypocrite.

No matter how much you dislike it.. I don't want more guns in the UK.

Now leave me to the freedom of my own opinion. Like I already said if it's that important to you then start campaigning for mre relaxed gun laws.
Go to your MP.
You'll find that you are in the minority, and the way democracy currently works that means you just have to deal with it.

[Sternjaeger II]

A slight misunderstanding. I mean that the UK is now providing a lot of money for no gain in order to prevent other European countries going bankrupt in the current Euro crisis eg Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland etc. Trade is very important of course and the change in the UK's industry has its basis in many factors not all of which can be controlled within the UK's borders or by its electorate eg the rise of cheap manufacturing in the far east.

Hood

Well it's no different from what the US did with the Marshall Plan, creating economic submission. It might look stupid to the average citizen, but it's the ABC of speculative finance.

The change of the UK industry is a mystery to me: take the automobile industry, yes, you never really made anything impressive out of it (apart for one or two luxury brands), but with the improvement of technologies and with the foreign know-how, you could have kept a strong independence on that. The problem is that, as usual, British engineering is a bit too much revolutionary, and apart for one off stuff like the Mini, you came up with abortion like the Robin Reliant.

but I digress, I think that considering the actual situation, the UK economy is one of the strongest and less handicapped of the planet (Germany and France could probably be better, but they're crippled by the Euro).

[Skoshi Tiger]

"Where are the police? They are overwhelmed by the volume and brazenness of the outbreaks. They are also constrained in their response by what appears on the surface to be modern Western restraint, but is in fact a symptom of the modern evasion of social realities that we lamely call “political correctness.” The British welfare system has bred personal responsibility out of the class that has become dependent on it; and the shortsighted immigration system has failed to integrate the foreign communities it has created within."

the author nailed it

Why would you want an aluminium bat? Wouldn't wood be much more appropriate? Personally I would have choosen a nice (English) willow cricket bat. It takes a bit more skill but when hit em' edge on you get the force concentrated in a much smaller area!

"an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" ;)

Cheers!

[Sternjaeger II]

Where did I say I was right? There is no wrong or right in this.. It's about what people, and what I want. I'm expressing my opinion and I cannot be wrong. It's not a matter of fact it's a matter of opinion.

Democracy lets people with different opinions vote for what they want.
Remember, you're the one who told me that because I disagreed with you I was un-democratic - It is not me who has a distroted sense of democracy it is you.


you're completely missing my point, I don't know whether you don't get it or you dont want to get it.


...are you for real? You say I have no understanding of democracy? I know that minorities are allowed to express thier opinion - It's a democracy so everyone can, Majority included.


same as above.


What is your problem?

Because I don't agree with you you assume I'm a sheep? I said STFU because you called me "selfish, discriminatory and anti-democratic" and I am none of these things and it made me angry.


if you can motivate why you don't want more guns in the UK with valid points then fair enough, but if you can't and just blurt it out like that, then I'm afraid you are part of the ovine category.

Anger is a dangerous feeling, it's instinct, we can't really get rid of it, but we can control it. I haven't said I don't want to listen to your opinion cos I want more guns, I am here to listen, so please, explain me why you don't want more guns in the UK.


I am just expressing my personal view and I decided I wouldn't like more relaxed gun laws in the UK. I like it as it is.

Well neither do I, I don't want more relaxed gun laws, in fact I want stricter ones! That would allow people that are deemed capable and responsible enough to handle a gun to have all the guns they want, and rest assured that they won't make any difference to your life.


Here you go again.. what have guns and twitter got to do with each other?

...again, seriously? It's about what the Government is trying to do to you, not just guns. They can't face a problem, they take it off you. Ever wonder why, with all the issues related to alcohol and the billions it costs us every year to sort problems out, they don't do anything to control that?


I have the freedom to not want more guns in the UK - You are a hypocrite.

yes, you do, it'd be interesting to know why, cos you've been at gun point and it shocked you? Cos if that's the case all you need to do then is grow a pair, sonny... but I'm sure it's not the case, and you have valid arguments against firearms.


No matter how much you dislike it.. I don't want more guns in the UK.

It's your feud, not mine, I don't care if you want more guns, less guns, daisies or pink elephants. I know what I want, it's a Government that gives trust to its citizens and doesnt play big brother with us lot.


Now leave me to the freedom of my own opinion. Like I already said if it's that important to you then start campaigning for mre relaxed gun laws.
Go to your MP.
You'll find that you are in the minority, and the way democracy currently works that means you just have to deal with it.

sure, you're entitled to your opinion like anybody else, but since this is a forum, where people exchange opinion, be ready to meet people whose opinion may differ from yours, and be ready to give valid arguments to defend your position, otherwise, you should better STFU.

I don't get why a Spitfire is better than an Enfield anyway, but I'm sure you have an explanation for it.