Latest one in china: Knife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeNFzPGRb0o

Bravo! I can guarantee you this. That guy will never ever pull another thing like this again.

This is what this is all about. Sorta like releasing mongooses on a snake infested island. Over a period of time these lower life forms will be removed from the DNA pool because of lead poisoning.

I had this opportunity quite often - they were supposed to be empty tho. ;)

What was the story behind it?

The first sentense must be most absurd thing a have read a while! You are right that the reason why it happens must be addressed BUT you also have think how we can reduce amount of victims when someone goes bezerk. Madman is helluva lot more dangerous with a machinegun with endless supply of ammo (you can get those legaly) than a madman with a machette. If you don't get this it is impossible to have anykind of sensible conversation on this subject.

It is for them that pull out guns on innocent people. You see its a game of chance. You thug and brandish your gun there is a good chance that is the last day you breath.

Like I said its like society has a rodent problem and now has released a predator species that will end up eating the bad ones. Just only matter of time baby. We got this under control over here.

He was 19 for christ's sake! That's a grown man, not a child.




http://demotivators.despair.com/demo...emotivator.jpg

The bottom line is don't go thug'in!

A few pages back someone mentioned pepper spray.

Ive used it when confronting some violent people attacking a man lying on the ground having his head stamped on. The attackers, of whom there were several were all physically larger than me.... and Im 6ft and weigh 190lbs... in fact one of them (the one armed with a big piece of wood he was using to bash the poor victim with!) appeared to enjoy steriods with every meal.

The spray worked immediately and they ran off (rather than turning on me.....thankfully!) and were apprehended later. One of them didnt run that far as he couldn't see very well. All in all its not bad stuff and in the UK its illegal for civilians to own.

However, i'd rather not have to rely on it to confront a gun toting loon or a bear. Frankly were I live both situations are unlikely. Though the badgers can be quite angry.....

Anyhoo, back the very original post. Good work on the skeet shooting that man! If only I was half as good with my shotgun.....

Marrokkon Dude not happy about us three cleaning up a parking lot after a party and his car not being able to pull out. He "commanded" me to get the dirt bags away that were in his path. When I did not comply, he pulled a gun. There simply can't be a more banal way to get a gun to your forehead, at the midst of day right in front of our scool (back then, I was 18 ).

The two others stepped back, I stayed and stared him down, telling him to put that playtool away and just leave. Which he did after a minute of pointing that gun at me. He then just drove over those bins in defiance.

I know people who were more grown up then me today when they were 20. I know peope with the age of 40 who are not grown up to this very day. What you look for is not grown up, but maturity. And that often is completely independent of age. You just have to check this forum for getting a feeling of how mature many folks here actually are. And matureness is not something entirely up to you. And just because we generally say 18 is the mark to be grown up, there is no magic button that is activated and makes you a grown man once you actually turn 18.

Say, Swiss, what is it with you and easy death, btw? Death here, klling populations there, death there, death in a second, death yeeehaw. Switzerland is an incredible boring and uptight place (incredible beautiful nevertheless), I give you that, been there often enough. But it can't be THAT boring.

I fail to see any relation between hating humans and boredom.
Maybe I am, in your view, the proof some people are born evil. :grin:

Movie rec.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEFj0Pngu_E


edit:

And another hero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYA78ss-B-o

Iiiiiii give you a hint. Forming your view on the world based on Hollywood usually is not such a good idea =)

And no, you are as harmless as can be. Barking dogs don't bite. The quite, really quite ones is who concern me most. Those who can't get their inner pressure out verbally.

uh-uh

Doesn't always need pressure kill, some do it for fun*.
But of course you'd feel sorry even for a serial killer.
Anyway, I don't feel like spending 15yrs in jail, so I'll just keep barking.

*Back in the 90's a close friend of mine was invited to a manhunt in India. At first he thought the other guy was joking - he wasn't...
Such things exist.

That's exactly my point mate: a thug pulls a gun to your temple cos in a society with no guns he knows you and/or your mates won't have one.
In a society with a gun ban the thugs will still have thir guns, so I don't see why I should deprive law abiding citizen of the right to self defence. Nobody is forcing you to have one, but if you want you can and it can save you and the people around you.

I'm sorry you had such an awful experience, but it wouldn't have been any different in a society with a gun ban.

Pfff, you do not think even for a minute if I had a gun with me at that time the situation would have been any better, now do you? The greatest weapon you have in such a case is psychology, pure and simple. Had I tried to draw a weapon there you can bet the seriousness level would have been driven up threefold. It at least would have become way more unpredictable. Here we had a teen who only had a gun at his disposal to defend his pride. He was small, weak, without that gun I just could have punched him in the face and that would have been that. One reason why I can't stand guns, because they make the greatest whimp a "strong" man. Pathethic.

And the end result of a development of this kind would be that not one Marrokon, but many more would have a gun. You seem to forget that even nuclear weapons resulted not in one side backing down, but an arms race to the very end, with all the costs that involved. Also, the US does not exactly prove your predictions right.
You gotta think outside the individual sitation, Stern. Just because it may be preferrable to have more options in one situation that does not mean that it improves your or your relatives life in the long term. In fact, it may make life much more dangerous in general.

?!

In Switzerland citizens of certain nationalities can never obtain a gun legally.
http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/s...frech/a015.gif

See, gun regulation works. :cool:

Wrong. Look at the words "Grundsätzlich" and "Ausnahmebewilligung". This article is outdated. It had been introduced to prevent people from countrys in conflict, to continue the fight in Switzerland.
Completly stupid article btw.

But could everyone answer the following question: What is better. A few hundred dollars stolen in a waffle shop, or a dead teenager?

The first thing you're taught when handling a firearm is that you don't have to draw it out at any given occasion, if you do is only because you need to use it. You dealt with a small thug, plain and simple, and the only thing you could have done is disarm him (Krav Maga is one of the finest forms of self defence for this), and as much as he might have felt strong behind his gun (provided it was real), you did the right thing.
The point is that if he had the doubt that you, your friends or anybody around you could have been armed, he would have thought twice before drawing his gun out.
Only fools and thugs draw pistols out to attack, good guys always use them in defence.

that is true, but it's also true that there are weaker people like women and elderly that could benefit from the "strength" of a gun. You understand what I mean? I don't think it's nice, but either you play the card of denial and accept that the violent society might strike you at some point, or you cope with it and give yourself a chance.
I know, it still remains though that the coward had a mean of being superior to you, and if he was on drugs or had nothing to lose you could have died there and then, and there's no trial, death penalty or apology that would resuscitate you. In Italy we say "It's better to have a bad trial than a good funeral"...

I live in a society that prohibits the ownership of most handguns, but this doesn't make me feel any safer, gangs and thugs are more aggressive here, and in two different situations I had to thank my Krav Maga training (once in London and once in Liverpool).
People tend to avoid bothering me cos I'm quite a big bloke, but it happened that three or four black teens came at me with a knife demanding my wallet and watch. In a way you're right, psychology is very important (they're often more scared than you). I simply said "oh is that all you have? You're gonna need something bigger with me mate"...
I dunno where it came out from, probably because my brain was confident enough to assess the situation and know I would have got away with the situation if the S**t hit the fan.
The first time (in London) the guy actually came too close for comfort, and I disarmed him (his arm made a horrible snapping sound when I twisted it), the second time (in Liverpool, it was 3 white druggies), they simply turned around and fled..

I didn't need a gun and had I had one I wouldn't have pulled it out, because the situation didn't require it, that's the difference.

A dead teenager, you can be sure he will never rob again or potentially kill someone.

I don't advocate the killing of people, guilty or not, I'm even against the death penalty, but I surely won't shed a tear for someone that looked for trouble and got it served with a side of lead..

NOWHERE did I say pepper spray doesn't work. I said that it is not always effective.

If you truly work with such sprays then you are surely aware of the many cases where they have not stopped an attacker. A simple google search will turn up many.

You must also be aware of the many cases where police officers have been incapacitated by their own sprays. A situation that would amplified HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN A ROOM.

It is obviously true that a single hit may fail to cause an attacker to cease his criminal behavior, however, only an idiot fires a single shot in a life or death situation and then takes time to evaluate an attacker's state before firing again. Mozambique is the way to go.

The above is the most overused and asinine statement possible in this argument. Prisons are FULL of murderers who, "didn't mean to hurt anyone". The INNOCENT people they killed are still just as dead. I could care less why anyone breaks into my house. They make that CHOICE at their own risk.


I will certainly be scared and I will certainly try to kill EVERYONE who is not supposed to be in my house.

Once again, THEY CHOSE TO BE THERE AND THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE RISK.

That will always be the case, but, only the most expensive handguns have really light trigger pulls without additional trigger work. IMO, it's a minimal risk.

I disagree. When it comes to defensive use in your home it's not very complicated at all.

You have spoken in ridiculously vague generalities throughout your posts but I would like you to answer my question...

Why should I, individually, be forced to die because, in general, strict gun control would result in fewer gun deaths?

Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED when three individuals forced me to use a firearm defensively. The fact that NONE of the 3 attackers had a firearm would not have saved myself, the 3 year old child, or her mother THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE I HAD A HANDGUN.


--Outlaw.

IF you are taught to begin with. That means you have been part of a shooters club, are a hunter, working with the police or have another special reason for having training. But we are talking free gun ownership here, with every redneck able to go to the gun store here.

Certainly I did the right thing, it is not that there were a lot of alternatives. I am not the backing down kinda guy, especially when people try to force me into anything.

But no, I do not buy your theory. If that were so, gun crime in the US would not be as high as it is. Or in any other country with high gun crime. Reality just does not support your point. All it does is making people more agressive and tense in general.


Stern, can you really imagine an old lady pulling a gun and pull the trigger? Do you even want to imagine it being nessecary that an old lady has to carry a gun in the first place? I have a completly different image of the eldery and I myself intend to carry some sweets to give away instead of a gun, that is a given (and that the mental image coming up with this immidiatly connects with pedophiles is another sad marker for society these days).

He was the exception, however. That happend only once in my life and I dealt with all kind of people since then. And I like that to stay that exception.

I am not talking the concrete situation here. That means, yes, I may find myself in a situation that would cause me to wish I had a gun. And yes, it also means close friends, relatives, maybe even future children could be killed.
But chances for that, at least over here, are lower then the chance to die in a car crash.
If everybody has a gun, then I "might" be able to defend myself, but chances to get into the situation in the first place rise expotentially with that. This means you get into a state of mind of constant siege.
I mean I am not putting on a full body kevlar vest for fear of being hit by a car, either. And I doubt you are.

That probably works more often then folks might realize. You hit it here, these guys are more scared then you are. Espeically when they appear in groups it's often some bravery ritual. Just give them a bit of confidence and their world crumbles. Just supports my theory that gun advocados (obviously not you) actually have an Ego problem if they think they can't deal with these situation the old fashioned way.

And I compliment you for acting this way. What also makes me wonder that you feel the need to carry a gun in the first place.

All that said, I will repeat what I said earlier. When you have to face somebody serious with a gun, you hardly will have the possebility nor the time to get your own. These folks shoot first and ask for money later. There won't be a high noon like situation.

When old ladies need a gun in their daily lives, I think we can agree that this is a society that has already sunken into the drain.

Guns won't make guns redundant. They quanify. And that means bigger chances a gun will find it's way into the wrong hands.

Guns are there for killing. When you have a gun, then it is quite obviousy that you are ready and willing to kill. I yet have to find the point in time when this became a positive attitude to have in the first place.

And you know what? I actually believe them that they didn't want to hurt others.
Do not misunderstand me, this does not excuse what they do, they deserve punishment.
After that you can become all emotional, sophisticated ape style, raging about guilt and how they deserve their fate and all the usual rightousness. Its modern fashion to be that simplistic, I would not blame you.

Or you can try to be a bit more rational, you know, that bit of brain capability that once used to differ us from the common animal, even against emotions, and ask yourself why these ppl became murderers despite their stated intentions. And once you developed a clue, you could try to make people aware of the circumstances involving the issue and thus not improve the lives of the people surrounding you, but actually give those people enough perspective to get some real goals in life. Ppl with a goal won't go killing.

This is not about nandy pansy nanny understanding, this simply is about putting away your stomach for a moment.

The latter once was an upheld virtue of western societies and culture. That intellectual decline has a lot to do with the decline of the west in general.

Beo, my friend, I suppose the point of disagreement is that you see only the negative aspects of gun ownership, whilst I'm trying to demonstrate that there are indeed positive aspects to it, and often they're the one that can solve a situation against all odds (or be useful for other things like hunting).

In reply to the question whether an elderly woman could defend herself:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/very...ome-intruder/#

and there are many other cases of old men too. A .38 is an ideal gun with little recoil and extremely portable, and I believe that yes, some societies are rotten and decaying enough to justify the carry of a firearm.

I am lucky enough to have an alternative, and I'm always avoiding confrontation, it's not in my nature and I only snap when I'm attacked, but this is me, other people might not have the skills or simply the capacity to physically or semantically defend themselves, this doesn't mean that they don't have less of a right to defend themselves by means of an object that can balance things in their favour if need be.

Again the solution is to be found in the education and values of society, but you'll be waiting a loooong time before this is sorted out.

I have legally carried concealed weapons whilst still in Italy because of my job and it didn't make me less worried or more confident, it was just a necessity to respond to a threat in an adequate manner, but it didn't change the fact that carrying a Glock in my jacket didn't make me bulletproof.

I agree, there are a lot of people that should stay well far from firearms, because they're a VERY serious thing to deal with, but it's also true that there should be some sort of balance and adequate ways to allow everybody to defend themselves. Maybe Tasers or similar devices could offer an adequate non-lethal alternative (because in the end of the day nobody really likes to kill someone, no matter how good or bad that person is).
So don't get me wrong, I'm not for the "a gun for all" policy, but I'm not gonna sit down and watch our government disarm us so they can control us better, whilst they cannot provide us all with adequate protection from crime..

@ outlaw For your, taking a life doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is in your house: fire at will. What do you make of all the people who died because of the use of a gun in a defensiv situation? I am talking about unarmed burglars, people standing near by etc.
You can't just kill anything that might want to attack you. I don't know the law in the US, but here your life must really be treatened in order to use deadly force.

For the pepper spray I learned that there is a small percentage of people who are not affected by it. That's true, but as I said, hitting a target in a high stress situation without training, will have no effect if you miss. I saw people shooting 10 rounds at a static target in training situations without any round in a vital spot. Remember the FBI statistic. And what if the attacker manages to take your gun from you and shoot you with it? Especially in close quarter (like a house) a gun is not the best option.

As for your question, I can only say this. I didn't advocate the interdiction of guns. But as I wrote earlier: using a gun for defense is not the way to go for many reasons I mentionned before. It will ony result in more death.

You must be a very scared man. Maybe you should think about the fact that you have a greater chance to die in a car accident then to get shot.

As you see we won't agree on this topic. So let just agree to disagree.

Sometimes it is frustrating to argue with you, Stern. It is as if you intentionally misunderstand me.

What I am argueing about is not the individual situation. I actually agree, in many ways a gun, in the modern world, helps out in certain situations. Though I think it is quite obvious even here that people overestimate their ability to actually use a gun when it "really" counts. It is much more about "feeling" safe, not about actually being so.

However, my big problem here really is that those situations arise in the first place.
And all immidiate situation solutions you laid down are counter productive to longterm solutions.
You prefer the quick fix over the, argueably more beneficial, long term perspective.
I am not so sure that this has proven a good course of action in any category over history.

I'd love to see you trialed for second degree murder in such a case, cause that is exactly what you would commit. Killing someone who poses no imminent threat to your life, while you are under control of the situation with your gun drawn and intent to kill.

i am a well armed hippy.i own several firearms and i used to avg around 10-20 hours a week shooting until it got to expensive.i can even do bullet art."most" gun owners are trained early in life the rights and the wrongs of handling a fire arm.i have guns dating back to the 1700's and have been an avid collector for 30 years.Those who choose to do wrong eventually pay for their crimes in the end and if a responsible gun owner is present during a crime you can be assured they will do what needs to be done to protect an innocent life.I know i would.

I am a 'Peacefull Warrior'.

Is there any dictatorship in the world that allows it's citizens the right to own and bear arms legally?

Wouldn't you say there is a direct correlation with the right to legally own a gun and despotic government?

Mexico has gun control and the Drug cartels have killed over 50,000 citizens in the past six years. Maybe this is an extreme situation, but who knows how things can escalate out of control when people have no enforcement power to protect themselves.

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

Note: There are some you that have posted personal attacks. You need to go back and edit or delete your inflammatory postings or you may receive infractions or ban.

The Nazis did not have a lot of problems with private firearms. In fact, hunting and shooting clubs came to new heights during the Nazi era. Gun banning laws were only introduced after the war.

What you fail to realize is that Dictatorshhips develop out of the midst of a society, its hardly ever fringe groups forcing their will on the majority of people.

I also did not see a rise of the american people when the Patriot act came into being, argueably the largest assault on basic rights in the US ever. This is how dictatoships develop, quitely, with hardly anybody noticing at first and with a lot of initial support.

So can that argument.

The Soviet Union used to, Libya under Gaddaffi, Iraq under Saddam, Syria, lots of the Gulf states, etc. In short, plenty.

And conversely many democracies have strict gun control (so the answer is not that simple, unfortunately).

I mentioned, citizens. I meant that to apply to general population. Yes, collaborators with the dictatorship may have guns, which is understandable. Afterall, they are part of the dictatorship.

Hitler was paranoid and no one around him was armed, except for his carefully selected guard units.

The general population in Germany were allowed guns until Hitler came into power. Afterward, the people were imprisoned or killed for having guns in their possession.

I bet this is true for most world leaders (good and bad).

You are showing your ignorance.

I most certainly would NOT face trial. Why?

Because the state of Texas (like most states) does NOT have a duty to retreat (some states do). Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that, in a darkened house in the middle of the night, anyone there unlawfully poses a deadly threat.

The reason you can make that assumption is that, as ANY IDIOT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, by the time you determine whether or not they pose an actual threat, IT IS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT if they do.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, THEY MADE THE CHOICE SO THEY CAN PAY THE PRICE. NOT ME!

Furthermore, in most states, your life DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN DANGER before you can use deadly force. In most states you can use deadly force to protect yourself from INJURY.

Why? Because, AS ANY IDIOT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, by the time you determine if they only, "MEANT", to cause injury and NOT kill you, it's too late to do anything about if they meant to kill you.

And let's not forget about the thousands of dead people who weren't SUPPOSED to die, just get the living crap kicked out of them.

But who cares about them, the important thing is that their murderer is still alive right?

--Outlaw.

Youtube has large numbers of carefully documented accounts of atrocities associated with gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM0fG-dzQjE

This following video is about an hour long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137bW...eature=related

The historical record is clear with gun control comes some of the worst atrocities against mankind ever known.

Britons aren't happy about gun bans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBx...eature=related

Err, what?

Whatever book your read, close it and throw it into the bins. There is a deeply ingrained gun culture in shooting clubs and hunting in Germany. "Schützenfeste" to this day form a solid yearly event in many german villages. It's this backwater spirit that formed a large part in the Nazis success in the first place, these guys were not going to hurt their basic support base.

Hitler's personal fear about guns around him does not change that.

Bystanders hit by legal defensive use of firearms is VERY low. MUCH lower than the number of people who would have been killed otherwise.

True, you can't kill anyone that might want to attack you, but you can kill anyone who reasonably poses a threat. See my reply to Zorin.

Based on WHAT?

What a cop-out. Based on your non-answer I can only assume that you afraid to admit that you think it's better that myself, the child, and her mother were dead.


I'm fully aware of crash related deaths. In fact, the fact that car crashes kill 4 TIMES as many people as guns do supports my argument that the anti-gun lobby is ridiculously uneducated. If they were not, they would be lobbying for stricter controls on who is issued a driver's license and more harsh penalties for moving violations. But they do not. So they are ignoring a MUCH MORE DEADLY THREAT to go after firearms.

I don't agree to that!!

--Outlaw.

You have to take 2 tests to get a license to own a car, perhaps there should be a written and competency test for gun ownership (as well as a license).... actually not a bad idea, Outlaw!

would you object to:
1. reasonable waiting period on gun purchase
2. background check for all gun purchases
3. limiting sale of certain magazines (based on capacity)
4. so called assault weapon ban?

I ask because these are more likely to occur than an outright gun ban (which would be a bad idea) and would still allow a citizen to protect his family.

For the record I am only hesitant on 4 because I know some great people who enjoy their AR15 and AK47s (and crappy SKSs), I'm fine with the first 3.

p.s. - I don't wish you or your family to have any misfortunes and I'm glad you were there to protect them... ;)

Justification does not prevent CHOICE. IMO, BY DEFINITION, if you know the law and intentionally violate it, you have CHOSEN to be a criminal.


From the Meriam Webster dictionary...
--Outlaw.

Great theory. But just as unrealistic as communism. A real choice you only have with a solid overview of all chances and possebilities, their consequences and results.

I yet have to meet a single person fully capable of reaching that.

Besides, ultimately you only rationalize what your stomach gives you. The "will" to decide against your own stomach on a constant basis is not given to many. If it were, the world would be a much better place.

Free will does not mean rationality and an inherent ability to vager between good and evil. That do your guts for you. It just means the absence of an outside power forcing your will.

Haha hey so why was this thread created anyway? It was worded in such a way to make one think a shooting happened. It wasn't to discuss a shooting sport at the Olympics.

As the OP so pointed out his hope was to elicit some debate on the UN small arms treaty which failed today and will never apply to anyone individual anyway.

Good job moderators in allowing discussion anyway.

Relax, Andy. It is the Internet. You knew what swims here. Life is too short to waste it with anger over that =)

Yes, BUT, those test are so woefully inadequate that they might as well not even do it. The only REAL reason for those tests is to generate funds for the ticketing authority. OK, I'm being a bit facetious but I think you understand my point that 99,9% of the drivers here in the US suck, even the ones that got 100% on the tests.

1 - No, because I have read at least 6 accounts of people who purchased a firearm because they were afraid of a specific individual and used it THAT DAY to save their life.

2 - Yes, and it is implemented now in the United States.

3 - Yes, nothing more than 100 rounds works for me. Note that this should not apply to belted weapons because they are never used in crimes and a collector should not be subjected to prosecution during a display because he accidentally miscounted. I picked 100 rounds because I see this as a step process that will simply lead to more and more limits on capacity. BTW, thanks for using the correct term. I'm so sick of hearing the word, "clip"!

4 - No, because I don't want some maniac to decide to shoot me with a 7mm mag because he couldn't get a .223 or 7.62x39. Even though you reduce my chances of getting hit at all, IF I do get hit, I will not survive a 7mm mag round to the torso. Note that I fully admit that this reasoning is questionable, however, considering that in such a situation I will be charging the individual doing the shooting, I expect I will get hit.

Thanks!! For the record, they were not my family though. In fact, I only vaguely knew them.

--Outlaw.

Then, for you, choice does not exist at all so, like raaaid and his matrix theory, there's no point in even attempting to make a point.

However, in the real world where the rest of us live, if he can kick my door in or walk away, he has a choice.

--Outlaw.

I understand you perfectly, but personally I will never accept to give up my guns because someone tells me I'm safe or because it will make my country a safer place. I know I'm fit to own and operate firearms, and as long as I have all my marbles and behave according to certain standards (i.e. frequenting gun clubs), I pose no threat at all to the rest of the society, and surely not more than the drunk driver or the average criminal. So no, I won't let the government get my guns and destroy them for their political agenda. When I was told the horror stories of what happened here in the 90s with the seizing and destruction of thousands of pistols.. man what a sad day for democracy that must have been...

sorry Beo, but if short term solution means saving lives, I'll stick to owning guns. I'm not ready to become a martyr nor I would want anybody else to be one. You had a shocking experience, but don't think for a minute that gun control would actually mean you or your loved ones wouldn't live the same experience again. Even in this gun-freak-control country they regularly seize assault rifles, because criminals do not abide by the rules of our society.

This article is from 2008, but a friend that works at the London Metro told me things haven't improved at all, and that during last year's riots there was the serious fear that some police officer would have been shot in retribution, that's why many watched as the thugs destroyed the shops...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

Bullocks. Choice certainly does exist. Simply not as that almighty descision tool you make it out to be. If that were the case, please tell me why in religions hardly anyone decides to join another religion, despite each religion claiming being the best one?

Ppl have much less choice in life then you might think, and that ceretainly is not covered by either/or, black and white, only the extremes views.

Now we are moving into Pathos? Sad day for democracy?

You want to safe lives by keeping up the conditions that take so many lifes to begin with? What?

You like guns? Nothing wrong with that, so do I. You want to keep them? Fine, I know decent folks who own guns. We disagree, but we disagree on other things as well. Politics and majority voting will have their say here.

But please don't come up with such desperate arguments. I nearly spilled my Apple Juice when I read that.

My bad, I misinterpreted your use of the word "will" to mean "free will". You meant it in the context of willpower.

Similarly, you misinterpreted Stern's use of the word "will" to mean willpower when he meant, "free will".

However, your statement that no one, "choses", to be a criminal is, for the reasons I stated, completely unsupportable.

Furthermore, I never said anything about the nature of any choice, almighty or otherwise.

--Outlaw.

nearmiss, do you have any sort of ability to distinguish between the historical record and propaganda? Do you actually believe this stuff? Really?

Look, if you guys across the pond want to have your toys - well thats fine. Last time I looked the US was a pretty active democracy and I'm sure if the people wanted to get rid of guns in your society their senators and congressmen would oblige with a bill amending the constitution. That domestic gun sales would seem to be on a permanent upward curve shows that lots of people seem to want them in your society.

Well thats no problem to me as a Brit, it's your call but please, please don't post utter, UTTER b/s about the sometimes tragic history of the rest of the world and link it to some wholly laughable argument about guns=freedom.
That just makes the rest of the civilised world regard you all as a bunch of gun-toting loonies.

As a Brit we enjoy the safety of some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the world - thank heavens!! We just don't need 'em as the chances of coming across someone armed with a gun in every day life are almost zero and we like it that way.

Don't believe me? Here you go;
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25341

Every Brit who posted in this thread stated they were against a relaxation of our firearms laws, even a couple who live abroad did so too!

That may have been indeed the problem. I was talking willpower indeed, Over here, despite the existence of the word willenskraft, it basicly covers both meanings.
Will does not work without willpower.

WHen I talk about criminal, then I do so in the morale sense, not the legal.

I think right now, this day in time the mainstream media is just an advertisement delivery system. By that, I mean it is not about what they say or report as long as they can keep their customers buying ads.

Youtube and the internet sources are our only really decent prospects for getting viable information. Yes, there are some nut jobs posting, but they are generally easy to ferret out.

It is always your personal thinking that matters to yourself. It is important to think critically and alternatively. Information sources and creditability are frequently overlooked, when we favor the message.

I can't tell about that, but there are plenty of videos up on the internet that don't mimic your points that are made about gun control in UK. I posted one above.

....
 

Near, I did not even bother to start counting the flaws in those videos. It was so out of this world in it's utter lack of context, factual errors and outright nonsense. The Nazi Germany one especially.
China is nearly as bad, a culture that at that time had plenty other problems then gun control. Get yourself some real history books, preferrably some released before the year 2001, when everything went nuts.

You make some fine points about discrimination of sources but then proceed to wholly ignore them yourself! Huh?
That garbage you posted up from Youtube (roflmao) about my country is almost completely factually inaccurate. What nerve that woman has! She describes herself as a "journalist":evil: Shame on her and the organisation she works for.

Do your critical facilities really rely on Youtube? Oh man, your school board has a lot to answer for!

I think Andy takes the issue too seriously, sometimes people do stupid things in the midst of a heated discussion, and mods are ppl, too.

But if they ban Andy, then I am out of here.

I could care less about his moral stance or what led to his putting my life in danger. My only concern is the ACTUAL threat he is at that time, not whether he "means" it or not. Because, in the end, I may be dead whether he meant to kill me or not. At that point in time, it matters not to me that his momma beat him or his daddy didn't love him, or he's on drugs, etc. When he chooses to partake in the activity that endangers me all that goes out the door. Whether that choice is an immediate one at that instant in time or ultimately took place years ago is irrelevant to me at that instant.


--Outlaw.

That is fine and great and I am sincerely sure you will sleep well after that.
Or you could support some local streetworkers or employment or education initiatives, or even a local sports club, so that you won't risk to get into a situation where you do not have your gun pointed at the attacker before he has.

Show me ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of someone "summarily executing" a "random or potential criminal" here in the US without prosecution.

The use of deadly force is CLEARLY defined by each state's laws and NONE of them allow "armed vigilante members" to roam shooting at will.

Your post is ridiculous.

In the case of the 19 year old who was killed, the citizen ORDERED HIM TO DROP HIS WEAPON AND DID NOT FIRE UNTIL THE TEEN POINTED HIS WEAPON AT HIM.


--Outlaw.

My honest respect, Outlaw.

I take back that last statement, even though you deleted your post for understandable reasons.

edit: can't even find Andy in the Member List anymore. All posts here deleted.

See ya in the air, guys.

Why do you assume I don't?

As a subset, I support...

Covenant House
Houston Food Bank
Operation Smile
Doctors Without Borders
National Wildlife Fund
World Wildlife Fund
Wounded Warriors
United American Patriots
Houston SPCA
FOP
Multiple American Indian Education Charities
and about sixteen others I can't recall off the top of my head.

Rest assured it takes me quite a while to do my tax return.

And yet, DESPITE all that, some schmuck may still CHOSE to murder me, or my sister, brother, girl-friend, father, mother, neighbor, old high school teacher, YOU, etc..

And it won't matter one bit whether or not he really MEANT to do it.

--Outlaw.

guys, really? You know the rules...

Some poeple just don't now how to take a joke. Zorin can take a joke. He's an alien.

Jack Ruby/ Lee Harvey Oswald



----------------`

The major thing to keep in mind here, with regards to "banning guns"; as soon as you ban something (take something offf the free market), you create a blackmarket


----------------`



When the reasons why are dealt with, the victim count stops... I'm sorry you don't see that

Maybe more so in the U.S, but that in itself is a sad indictment of the deteroriating quality of your news and reporting since the obligation to give balanced coverage was so foolishly thrown away.

It's all too easy to be completely selective in these circumstances - by only picking the items that agree with what you want to hear. Seems to be what has happened in the US with tv news - it's been turned into a market with stations targetting particular political views.

Newspapers in the UK are like this. Fortunately TV news still has to endeavour to be balanced.

Once a country has no access to news media that can be trusted (or no way of distinguishing who the trustworthy ones are) then democracy is in trouble.


I agree with ArthurSmedley, that video about the UK guns issue was so biased as to be effectively propaganda. I suspect the reporter knew exactly what she was doing too. Seemed to be stitched up to satisfy a certain agenda for the U.S. audience.

I don't even know where to start in this thread. Those that think there is such a thing as a civilized society in the world today must be seriously demented. All of society is about money and power. Every ounce of it. A truly civilized society would care about all the people starving in the world instead of spending trillions in advertising for products they sell. They would think of others before themselves. But we don't. The world doesn't reward that. This is how society works. There is no such thing as a civilized society anywhere on this planet. So anyone saying that "I can't believe a civilized society like the US doesn't have more strict gun control/gun bans" is an absolute buffoon. We as a whole are very very very far from being civilized.

2ndly, any citizen should have every right to own damn near any gun/rifle/machine gun etc., they want. There's nothing worse than feeling/being helpless in a life threatening situation. NOTHING. Do you think that 100 Nazi soldiers could have gone into a town and rounded up 10's of 1000's of the Jewish had they all had been armed? Good fricken luck. The US does go to extremes on everything - anything from our cars, to our food, to our weapons, to our military, etc.. But one thing that will NEVER happen is some other country invading, or our own government rounding us up like sheep to be slaughtered. We contained the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, which is a very sad thing indeed. But there was no US soldiers out there killing the innocent civilians for crying, or trying to run etc. The absolute opposite of what happened when the Nazi's were rounding up the Jews and stealing all their possessions. I guarantee had the US army rounded up the Japanese and killed those that didn't line up like sheep, that our population would have gone after the military 10 fold. The white house would probably have been blown up etc. What can citizens of a country do that have no means of defending themselves when the citizens themselves are being raped, murdered, and slaughtered? Absolutely fricken nothing.

That's what always amazed me reading about WWII. The amount of countries that just fell right over when Germany invaded is baffling. The population of those countries easily out numbered the German military by 10 - 20 fold and hardly anyone could do anything about it except stand there with their tail between their legs, subdue, or get shot in the head by the only people with munitions.

The US has done it's fair share of being the stupid super power of the world, but one thing the government in the US will never be able to do is perform a genocide on it's own citizens. One word gets out and they'd have 50 million + armed citizens not letting that happen. All it takes is one crazy leader, the brainwashed citizens, the fellow military leaders, a whole bunch of propaganda and we'd have another Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, but as long as I live if I'm going out, I'm not going to do it defenseless. I'm not ever going to get to the point of marching into some gas chamber without being able to do anything about the situation in the 1st place.

You can think I'm crazy. You can think I'm insane. But the real story is had all the citizens in those other countries during WWII been gun-toting hippies like us in the US, Hitler would have had to change his tactics up just a bit before an invasion. Because, quite frankly, any country that would dare try to invade the US would have as much problem with the population as they would with the military. And that's the truth. Think guns are bad all you want. (I don't like them either tbh - which is funny because of how many 1000's of rounds I fire from all sorts of military weapons every week) But the main thing is, you'll think twice before occupying a country where citizens own anything from howitzers, 50 cals, 40mm automatic grenade launchers etc.) than countries where citizens have kitchen knives. That's a fact and a cold hard reality. Like I said, good luck to any country that brings their military to ours for a conflict. It should've been that way for all the poor innocent people killed during WWII that couldn't do a damn thing to defend themselves. We will never lose our guns. This is our mentality as a whole, and I'll never live somewhere where I don't have the right to defend myself against some sort of batshit crazy leader hell bent on genocide. Let alone some stupid thief that thinks they can just try to take what's mine. Call the mentality crazy. But us yanks are not about to put up with BS like that. I know I sure as hell won't.

Jack Ruby...

Convicted of the murder [of Lee Harvey Oswald] on March 14, 1964

15 second google search.

--Outlaw.

For those that have noted that we in America, and more specifically me, are, "scared", why do you feel so "safe" and unafraid in your country?

Do you think the people in your country who were brutally assaulted or murdered felt/feel that way as well? Do you wonder what they were thinking as they lay on the ground bleeding to death? Or what they were thinking when the last boot (that they remember) smashed into their head (or fist, pipe, bat, etc)?

Why do you believe you are different from them...that it won't happen to you?

And in response to those claims...

I am not afraid on a daily basis. But I do know how quickly things can go from a great day sitting on the porch to one of utter terror and chaos. If you're wondering, it's less than a second. And I do not delude myself into thinking it can't happen again. I was prepared then and I will prepared if it happens in the future.

--Outlaw.

Jack Ruby summarliy executed Oswald

But aside from one aircraft that is exactly what happened with 9/11. Everyone just sat there.

The famous Milgram experiment in the 1950's were designed to prove that unlike other cultures (such as Germans and Japanese) average Americans were immune to Authoritarian influences and would disobey if ordered to do something immoral. As one would expect, Americans were every bit as likely to blindly obey authority as anyone else.

If anything, the strong hold of fundamentalism and rule-driven bible belt morality shows that the tendency to endorse and comply with authoritarian rules is strong in the US. (always bearing in mind the true fundamentalist needs a combination of both OCD and psychopathic personality disorders, but quite normal people can still be swayed to endorse the mind set)

In fact my personal impression is you are unlikely to get an uprising in the US against an authoritarian neo-fascist (fascist in the nazi sense of promoting "patriotism" as the ultimate good) government. However you are quite likely to get an uprising of gun toting militia in the US if a truly democratic government, that had upset big business and the religious right, got into power.

Wow, I shouldn't have to but, here goes...


And he was prosecuted.

I didn't ask to be shown a person who summarily executed someone. I asked to show me one who did it WITHOUT prosecution.

--Outlaw.

Everyone just sat there because noone expected the people who took over the planes to kill themselves with them. That would be like saying some army is invading your country and then walks in with a nuke strapped to his back to blow not only his army up, but the population as well.

And the whole reason "one plane" did something is because they found out what happened to the other 2. Which just so happened to be my point.

And I could care less about some irrelevant study. Unless you live in the US, or grew up in the US, you really don't know our mentality, regardless of what source/study you are pulling from. People do very different things in life threatening situations. No scientific study could possibly monitor that, unless the situation was truly life threatening.

maybe it was just the way you wrote it

Well then, feel free to enlighten me on the correct way to write such a sentence.

--Outlaw.

"Show me ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of someone who had "summarily executed" a "random or potential criminal" here in the US, without being prosecuted for it."

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Some say they don't believe the atrocities of WW2 that affected millions of people.

So, what if every bit of what you read or view isn't all true. There were so many murders and mistreatments of people during WW2 that are corroborated by competent witnesses to make freedom to own a gun extremely important. It is just common sense to own a gun, for your personal protection and defense of your property.

Eisenhower insisted german citizens in the proximity of the death camps be forced to walk through those camps after they were secured by the army. It was not about conviction on the part of those persons for their lack of caring or lack of action. It was to have millions of witnesses to the atrocities. There are so many witnesses the atrocities can not be refuted legitimately.

There are many people trying to deny the holocaust today, but that boat doesn't float. There are too many corroborations of the atrocities on film and photographs as well.

There are people that are totally irrational, angry and cannot be fixed to fit normalized society.

If you spend some time on Suicide hotlines, where pre-suicidal people call in one of the first things they teach you is to never say "go ahead and do it".

THe lesson to learn is this...when people discuss hatred like killing people,etc. THey should be taken as serious as someone sharing thoughts about committing suicide. They should at the very least be referred for observation and possible detainment to determine their resolves in such matters.

Stand in a pre-plane boarding security line and joke about bombs, make some kind of veiled threat or even discuss a possible security issue. People will report you, and the authorities will remand you to some form of custody to discuss your remarks. They will definitely detain you long enough for you to miss your flight, lesson learned.

Yes... and in the case of some "gunmen" going berko in the campus, the indicators were there beforehand.

but, we can't just go and pick someone up and put them under "observation" because someone may think they're wierd... they usually go berko because they've been taunted and called wierd once too often

You can be taken into custody and held for up to 72 hours in the US on suspicion of a crime.

During those 72 hours the questioning can definitely be done by professional persons, i.e., psychiatrist or psychologist.

Yes, council may be all that is possible, but family members could be brought in to assist. Family intervention may not be enforceable, but I do believe most families would realize the problem after discussions with competent persons and be willing to help.

I believe the parents or family members of the recent mass murderers would have been very willing to help to protect the life of their family member and possible victims.

Family and psycho intervention might have abated the Columbine, and other mass murders.

When people have psych problems, they don't usually get well without medication, monitoring and intervention.

yes, but if they're going to go and detain people because they may be seen as "addicted to video games", we're all up for 72 hour detention and psych analyisis :(
With the columbine massacre, they had their foibles.. but (and this is the important bit), they were both terribly taunted by their peers beforehand.

I wasnt' thinking about video games. The word out on the recent mass murderers was they were sharing their thoughts on social networks. THey also shared with close confidants about their thoughts and plans for murder and mayhem. Evidently, they weren't believed. I sure would hate to be a party to such beforehand knowledge and later come to realize my lack of response helped destroy so many lives.

I've not heard about this Aurora colorado murderer, but for some reason these cowards always have to project their thoughts and plans to some degree beforehand.

Solutions for prevention are a complicated subject, but in order to save lives at least conscious efforts need to be made to try to find some way of getting to the problems and dealing with them before the shootings.

I have a high powered hunting rifle in my gun safe. It has NOT moved without me, nor has it been touched by anyone but me. I only have the combination to that safe. That gun hasn't gotten out of that safe and killed anyone, and hopefully I can say that until my dying day.

I can you see now you weren't but that common misconception was given as an illustration of how a situation could play out incorrectly (OT but in line... a bit like the old 70's misconception of watching gladiator movies meant the viewer was gay)


I'd sure hate to be in that experience as well, but the "evidently the ramblings weren't believed" scenario says what? That is also part of my mentioning the misconception of video games... at what point should something be believed?
Should anyone who makes even a simple threat be put in? (there was an occasion of that here not long ago)
Does it get used to do someone over? (like meaning the cranky old man up the street gets carted off?? or someone moved out of the way of a person's ambition in promotion?)


You (as in generally, not you personally) can't judge them as cowards though, not when it comes to being bullied, shunned and tormented... cowards usually work in packs, that's how they get their strength.

I'm really not sure about the batman killer though - the guy was apparently brilliant and into studies of the mind.
I saw a news report which featured his facial expressions during his first court hearing (and I'm not sure as to exactly what bender he went on, whether that be a genuine experiment gone wrong (without or involving some kind of substance) or something of a breakdown, but he was genuinely looking to be of "what the hell just happened?" Another report involved a notebook and supposed visits with the uni psychiatrist... did he have an issue of some kind, or just furthering his personal studies?

[EDIT] A report just in indicates the psychiatrist did attempt to warn others of concerns she had regarding Holmes... they were ignored




I totally agree.... perhaps school teachers need training in psychology ?



There are never any problems with a responsible approach

Couldn't agree more.

wait a minute now... you dropped two atomic bombs on civilians and firebombed their major cities. The fact you found a more efficient way to kill civilians doesn't make you better. Let's not play the game of "we're based on better moral grounds", because this is really not the case, we've ALL our skeletons in the closet. The US were an extremely racist country back then and after the war, so your statement is not acceptable.

the way in which it happened would have left the US with their mouths wide open if you were invaded like the rest of Europe: let's not forget that your best tank in 1939 was the Grant and that you still had your M1903 as infantry rifle issue. Your Air Force was in no better state, so I doubt you would have managed to contain a well organized, well equipped and tactically supreme German Army. It took you fellas up to 1941/1942 to become militarily competitive, and the advantage was that you were an ocean away, far from the battlefields and out of the reach of their bombers.
Now I'm not saying you wouldn't have overcome them, but look what happened to the Russian giant before they managed to deliver an effective counter-offensive..
As for the Jewish, there were some cases of rebellions, like the Warsaw ghetto revolt and the Warsaw uprising, but they were few and far between, the problem was about internal conflicts, cos some people were indeed cool/couldn't be bothered/profited from the Nazi occupation. It's not all so black and white here in Europe.
Yeah, you export genocides and give them names like "war on terror" or "peacekeeping", much more efficient, proficient and profitable. Have a look at the number of casualties in the countries you "exported democracy" to since the end of WW2..
I don't think you're crazy, but maybe you're looking at the world with stars and stipes tinted spectacles.. Don't get me wrong, I agree about what you say in terms of the right of self defence, because our institution simply can't be everywhere all the time, but I don't think the US are any better than any other country in the world. There's no perfect or "better" country as such, because as long as there will be inequality there won't be happiness for all. It's an awful rat race, and when it comes down to the nitty and gritty is you vs the rest of the world, and what I want is that nobody touches my right of self defence, how I enforce it is my problem, pure and simple.

After reading pretty much all the posts in here, all the arguments on both sides, what you wrote there mate pretty much sums everything up;

What seems like "common sense" for an individual, is derived from a person's innermost conviction and fundamental values, and that is the reason why - even though we lot sometimes seems to be very much alike - we are so different... surprisingly different.
For me and many others, the phrases "common sense" and "owning a gun" is a contradiction in terms.

My only input is; we quite clearly live in very different circumstances. We feel sorry for you guys having to live in a society where you can get your hands on leathal guns so easily, and you guys feel sorry for us not beeing able to "defend ourselves".

I really don't see any of us beeing able to convince "the other side" to change stance in this issue. I also know that there is no point for us Europeans trying to convince Americans (whith opposite opinion), as we are mostly beeing glanced upon as beeing "patronizing" when it comes to issues like this (health care included). IF there is to be a change in the US, it has to come from within.

cheers

you see, it's broader than that, and guns are only an example, it's about individual freedom and possibility to choose over matters.

I don't want a government to touch my fundamental rights, I want a government to fix the problems of society that bring stuff like crime. The fact that a criminal can potentially get hold of a gun is only the end result of a government that can't prevent crime by applying the right social policies, and convince their population that the solution is to remove guns out of the equation to make our society safer. But it's not the case, people keep on dying, being attacked, raped, robbed, so something doesn't quite work. Crime is on the rise, and the situation is that law abiding citizen are left defenceless and not given the option to defend their loved ones in an appropriate manner.

I am not sure about that.. maybe again it has to do where you live. According to BRÅ (Crime Prevention Council )*, every year about 90 people on the basis of lethal force in the form of murder, manslaughter and assault with a fatal outcome occurs in Sweden. The number has not changed in the past thirty years (make note that we have almost 1 million more inhabitants) . Neither has deadly violence committed by young people increased over time.
people getting killed are mostly criminals themselves.

Actually the only type of crime that seems to increase dramatically in Sweden are environmental crimes, nothing where a handgun can make a difference..

Edit... robbery has increased marginally the past few years, but it makes more sence (to me anyway) to wear a bicycle helmet than to carry a handgun... looking at risks and potentials to die.

*Swedish Authority which is working to reduce crime and increase security in society. They do this by generating the data and disseminate knowledge about crime, crime prevention and judicial responses to violations.


Statistics for NY:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
quite a dramatic change in comparison to the 90ies.. and it has nothing to do with people arming themselves

Stats for US
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


PS. Oh dear.. Now I did what I said to myself I shouldn't do... get involved in the debate LOL. Point beeing anyway; the only way one can say crime is on the rise, one has to backup with stats, not with just a "feel"..
But again, as we agreed upon,, it all stems down to one's foundation of values.. where we seem to differ

the main factor is the country and population's wealth: wealthier countries with a small economic inequality among classes have way less violent crimes than others. One of the main drivers of crime is poverty. Sweden is a happy and wealthy country, but others like the UK, who opened the doors to a lot of immigrants, brought in a social inequality that favoured crime.

I totally agree, poverty and economic inequality is indeed a huge reason for rise of crime (if there is one). I would however claim that immigration in itself is not the major issue, but rather how the state/government/society deals with it. Sweden is one of the most open countries in the world when it comes to refugees and immigrants. Of course we have lots of problems that stems from segregation, poverty and alienation... but arming oneself is not the answer. We are talking about a completely different dimension when it comes to these things.
Sweden is not at all that different from the UK in terms on immigrants, in the UK 8.982% immigrants in comparison of national population, Sweden 12.3%

But again, having a society where we have less of economic inequality and poverty is probably the best medicine.. ..sure we have a high tax rate in Sweden, but dare I say ( i have heard it before)... we are no communists LOL

PS again: this is NOT a "my country is better than yours" post.

No it's not;


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-...r-term-trends-

For the purposes of this thread (skeet shooting!) check this out too;

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-...olent-crime-co

Evidently lots more people being thrown out of windows in the US compared to Europe.

duplicated

The weapons fetish of some people, and the US as a whole, and the vehemence with which people defend it never ceases to amaze and shock me. I, for example, am quite thankful for the strict german laws on weapons ownership and wouldn't mind seeing them made even stricter (to prevent weapons caches with dozens of guns).

But that, I guess, is the fundamental difference in cultures and upbringing. ;)

Breathtaking!! I thought you didn't like racism Stern? Are you a higher crime risk then?:grin:

Agreeing with you but not that statement... I know a lot of Americans that completely have the same values in regard to these things as I do. To stigmatize a whole nation like that is not only wrong, but gains nothing. It's like saying all Europeans are pro EU :)

did you actually read those links?

From the second one you provided

"The number of homicides has increased from around 300 per year in the early 1960s to over 800
per year in the early years of this century. More recently the number of homicides has fallen and
these provisional data show that homicide is at its lowest level since 1983 (when 550 were also
recorded). [which is a good sign maybe, but still more of periods when guns bans weren't in place].
To put the latest homicide figures in context, there were three times as many victims of road deaths
(1,715) reported to the police in England and Wales in 20113 (although levels of deaths on the roads
have also shown some marked decreases in recent years). [How about we adjust this number then? Getting a license nowadays is a JOKE, but we don't want to upset the automotive and oil market do we?!]
In addition, provisional data show that offences involving a firearm (other than air weapons)
recorded by the police fell by 16 per cent (to 5,911) in 2011/12 compared with the previous year.
This is consistent with a steady fall in offences involving a firearm since 2005/06, when more than
11,000 offences were recorded (annual trend tables D19 and D20). [so we're still having firearms incidents despite the ban... mmmmh what does that mean? Probably that criminals are still capable of getting hold of them and citizen were deprived of them because of the government political agenda?! Must be great to be a sheep... ]"

One hasn't have to be a racist to state the obvious. I am for a generous immigrant/refugee policy in Sweden, but it is important to identify and see problems that comes with it.. such as risk for alienation, segregation.. or you have no means to work with these issues. It's not all great and dandy... but it is important to be open for people in need (imo). Often when I look on the news on TV, seeing all the scheit that goes on, I think to myself what a lucky bast**d I am beeing born where I was.

Back to topic: The "right" to bear arms

I'm sorry but your attitude is pathetic. What shocks me is how disrespectful some people are towards other people's interests. Just because you don't like firearms it doesn't mean that they're bad or not moral. I for one wouldn't be too happy to think that my government, which I elected and gave power to give me a better society, doesn't trust me with my own fundamental rights and decides to deprive me of stuff for the sake of better (theirs) control, not safety. You really need to be blind not to see this.

nope, unfortunately there's immigrant and immigrant, even if people are SO scared of making distinctions based on race and provenience here (and it's not like they don't think of them, it's just that they don't have the attributes to voice them cos they're not politically correct).. if anything I provide this country with highly specialised work skills that locals are too lazy to learn, and my taxes go towards many of those lazy useless waste of spaces out there that live off benefits, so bite me.

Yes I did read them. They show, like the quotes you took from them that crime is falling. Guns in the UK? Citizens have been "deprived" of them because of public outcry over the Dunblane massacre. You don't think our gun laws have overwhelming public support? Lol.

Btw, no one in mainland Britain has ever been able to apply for a firearm on the basis of self-defence. There ain't no such catagory. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

..which ... for the record.. has difference "provenience", including native.

Actually, I don't really have the time for this.. good to debate/talk with ya guys.. have fun and see you when patch is released ;)

oh yes, don't get me wrong, I don't make any distinction there, they're all the same parasites, no matter what colour, gender, religion... but then again it's the government that nannies them into this "don't worry, we'll give you a house, some money and all the benefits you need so you don't have to worry".

A year ago I parked in front of my house, my neighbours at the time were some single mum on benefits with a useless 17 years old son that spent all day smoking weed and bumming around, there was a van to do the loft insulation in their house. I had an estimate the week before and they asked a staggering £450, so I wondered how they could afford it: I saw the van guy coming out and asked what was it all about, and he said "it's the government man, they're on benefits so they don't pay for it".. how can a working, honest, tax paying citizen take that crap day in and out boggles my mind..

Although I do not wish to add more fuel to an already burning fire I must say I find your attitude rather sad (to put it mildly) and I really pity people like you who feel threatened by their own government to the point that they insist on owning arms on the nebulous principle that "the big bad government" wants to limit one's personal freedom. I'm not a blind believer in the good of governments, I know they're sodders, but I don't see owning weapons as a way to solve that problem. :roll:

I have no problems with hunters owning weapons (not owning them would make that profession rather pointless, wouldn't it?) or people who like sportive shooting as a hobby. I do believe, however, that there is no need for anyone to own assault rifles, MGs or even more than one or two handguns (like, for example, the father of the young man who committed the massacre of Winnenden a few years back - the idiot owned 17 handguns!). I don't see shooting clubs as an evil itself, but it is my heartfelt impression that too many privately owned weapons are a mere boost for the owner's self-esteem, a d*** replacement or an imagined cure for real or imagined faults of character/body/whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor
The weapons fetish of some people, and the US as a whole,


2000 WWII vet's die each day; remember what they did for your right to think the way you do. It could have been a different story and, your thinking could be along the lines of; ...."if we just had a gun it could have been different."

I'm proud to be an American and I would gladly serve another 22 years to allow you to continue to think the way you do..............!

Just don't stereotype all Americans as having a weapons fetish. My house is protected by Smith and Wesson but I don't eat, sleep, drink guns.

Guns don't kill people.....People kill people!

~S~

The problem with partial gun control.. it is just a first step towards total gun control.

Give the politicians an inch they take a mile. It is very difficult to rescind laws in the US, because there are so many political influences and special interests enjoined to preserve status quo, and acquire new influences.
That is probably the most important reason people are so set against government interventions.

Recently, the mayor of New York made it illegal to serve soft drinks over 16 ounces, because sugar is a contributor to diabetes. The government in many instances has gone over the top with the "nanny state". Even the presidents wife tried to do away with kids meals at McDonalds and french fries.

Sadly, defending against such political arrogance and ignorance has become a frustration for Americans. Simple basic freedom choices are under constant attack from radicalized thinkers empowered in America.

Gun Control is at the top of their list, and who knows what comes behind that. Maybe they will demand that aborted fetuses be ground into hot dogs. I saw a crazy video on youtube a while back where something along these lines about fetuses were being used in hotdogs. You can't believe everything or you'll become a scizo.

There have always been partial gun controls in US as local levels. NYC has ordinance for years that prohibits guns in bars and nightclubs.

Washington, DC has had a myriad of problems with their local gun statutes, because people are still getting killed by the crooks with the guns.

There have always been local communities that have stiffer prison sentences for persons using guns in the commission of crime. Those penalties aren't applied as they should be, because prisons are too full.

In the US there are 750 prisoners per 100,000 persons as compared to England 153 prisoners per person, in Japan 63 prisoners per 100,000 persons.

Drugs is a huge problem in US and there are overwhelming large numbers of people in the prisons just for possession of drugs. These are non-personal crimes that for the most part harm no one.

American government representatives are almost all lawyers, and there are more lawyers per capita in the US than any nation in the world. So, yeah I guess that is a factor.

In 1980 the number of people in prisons in the US was 150 per 100,000 persons. That is an enormous increase over the past 30 years.