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.



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



Too late. I've never been to the UK but I bet I could find a firearm to purchase within 24 hours.

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.

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".

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? ;-)

Charter member. And the 1000 yard club to :)

what, a massive bodycount is preferable to some imagined slow death? in what form would this demise take?

sorry, who just got downgraded?
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.
and
top notch.
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.

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.
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?

did make me laugh though

:grin:

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.

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.

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!

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

Benjamin Franklin

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.

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.

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..

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.

What a great lovestory!

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?

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.

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.;-)

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.

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

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

Well said.

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.

This is even more sad

http://www.washingtonaccidentbooks.c...cident-injury/

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

this is saddest

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

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???

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.

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

I knew that. I was just being silly.

Thank you BadAim.

Well said sir.

S!

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.

me too. :P

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...;-)

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.

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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ted_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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

[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?

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..

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop.

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).

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ;-)

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;323513]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.

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.

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...

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!!!

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"?
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.

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

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!!

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Completely agree Nearmiss.

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

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."

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

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ey-attack.html

How much do you value yourself?
Others?

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?

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? :)

Adopted 1791.

So what's your take on the patriot act?

...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.

Sweden is turning into a cesspool!?

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/gcsebit...ages/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.

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:

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

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.

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:

why would it be funny?

..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..

*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.

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

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

*is disappointed*

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.wordp...ng?w=651&h=489 just to throw a bit of humour in :)

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..

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.

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.

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...