I agree, it's easier to kill with a gun, but you don't hang around with loaded weapons all the time: you need to take it out, load it and go on a killing spree.

Unfortunately the idea of a world without armies and guns is pure utopia: difference, class, status and primary needs force us to confrontation, on many scales.

I agree, I don't wanna live in a society where I need to walk around with a sidearm all the time to provide for my own security, but I want to be given the freedom of bearing arms, using them for recreation, hobby, hunting (not that i'm a hunter myself, but others are) and ultimately (and hopefully never), self defence.

No, I said nobody cared about guns, I was talking about guns, remember?

Universtity fees (taxes?) is a seperate issue? Who was protesting? Students. Who protested at the banning of handguns? Handgun owners, it means nothing. It's just tough

So what? laws are restrictions of rights the more stupid the population gets the more laws are brought in. They didn't disarm everyone, if you've got a good enough reason and you pass the criteria you can still get one.

I have relatives who were there. You really are an obnoxious person.

Where did I say my country was better, where would you like me to start with Italy? 20th Century?

Truth is, none of these points you raise have any relevance to the discussion.

You brought Bloody Sunday up why? What point were you making?

Where? You can't handle it not me. Where Have I ranted on like you do?
Bringing all manner of historical attrocities and wrong doings, for what? To defend your hobby. I have kept to arguing my case not throwing so much sh*t around hoping some sticks.

Sorry, but societies consist of more people then your psycho having a go at a group. And I rather risk being shot by a psycho in an unlikely event of being at the wrong time at the wrong place then having every weirdo, drug addict and wannebe criminal or even your average gun fascinated father easy access to a firearm. There simply are too many imature, irresponsible or emotional driven poeple out there. In light of this the fun for hunting or sports shooting and as harsh at that sounds, ultimately self defense, too, is a very egocentric one. That is the gist of it.

And in regards to nations, we are very qucikly reaching a point where this earth is becoming a very small and very densly populated place. Time runs out for national quarrels. Either grow up or go down.

yeah, cos either you don't have a degree or you already paid yours, so it's not your issue, right? Typical selfish attitude of ignorant people.

a law is a rule to define your behaviour in a society, not a restriction of your rights. They disarmed a lot of people.

Seriously man, I was talking to you plural, why to you it always has to be a personal attack ,especially if I don't know you?.. besides it wasn't even you that brought up Syria, and that was in answer to that.

again, it wasn't referred at you, read ALL the posts of this thread, not only the ones from me.. and I surely know that my country is very very far from perfect, and if someone points out its flaws I'll be the first one to say you're right.

Hood (was it Hood?) made the silly comparison with Syria, and my point was that there's no need of such parallel, since every country has its own massacres at some points in history.

well you keep on telling me to leave, cos I'm not welcome and I steal your money(by you, who again for some reason think you represent your whole country, and thank God you don't), is that a relaxed attitude? It's called xenophobia, fear of what's different, and that's what it is. From what you write you really seem to be afraid that what's alien to you will bring only bad things, so you want to push it away altogether.

We're broke.. If someone has to pay a bit more towards a degree then that's just tough. I can't afford any more tax, sorry. They are lucky that they got a free education anyway, many many more worldwide do not.

Argue over the words all you want, you're good at it. So, it's a government restriction on behaviour when you want it to be, but when you say that the current law restricts your rights what you mean is it restricts your behaviour? Which is it?

Why bring up Bloody Sunday?


Why did you bring up Bloody Sunday?


As one of my rights I can express my opinion. I'm not xenophobic, or Racist, I represent me, myself. I said I want you to leave, I do. From the way you've spoken to me and the extremes (I could go back and quote all the negative things you've said about me, my country, my view) you go to to make a point, the things you've said to me would get you knocked out in any pub in the UK, lazy, benefit cheats, drunks, murdrers, destroyers of countries, bereft of morals, corrupt.. etc . I don't want you here, me personally, ok? Not the whole of the UK, I'm not taking dictation here. It's just me.

You also continue to tell me how I think ' From what you write you really seem to be afraid that what's alien to you will bring only bad things, so you want to push it away altogether'

No, I just don't want the current gun laws changed, you have expanded the argument to include all of the 'bad' things that you have included in your posts, the shock tactics, character assasination, is all there for anyone to read.

All I have said is I disagree with you and I've stated why. Get over it. Oh and please quote me where I said you 'steal' our money, I said take, as in when it's given.

You sure it's not Whinny:confused:

pathetic and senseless. They're applying cuts to one of the main forms of income of the UK: research. But I'm sure you know better, with your "tough" answer for all..

eh?

AGAIN? I EXPLAINED IT.

broken record?

Course you do, that's what you've been doing so far. You've also contradicted yourself: you don't want me to shut up and leave you alone, you want me to leave, you're a xenophobe.

yeah yeah, keyboard hero. You might appreciate the fact that a pub is not the ultimate place for this kind of debates, but still, try and knock me down, and let's see what happens, you think I carry the opinions that I do without being able to defend them from ignorants of your calibre, who in front of the sad truth of things would just try and knock me down cos they're in denial? Truth hurts man, doesn't it? Well, as you say: tough. Besides I thought you'd be used to get insulted by now, since our modern society does it continuously.

yeah, we already know you're an intolerant person, but thanks for reiterating the concept. I'm your complete opposite: I'm committed to the country I live in, I'm socially engaged, I contribute to charitable events, I vote, I was even offered to be a member of the local parish council.. Yeah, you wanna get rid of people like me really. The real difference is that unlike you I'm tolerant, and ready to support also people like yourself.

it's called opinion, but then again you don't even vote, what do you know about expressing your opinion anyway? Oh yes, you express your opinion by non voting, isn't it? :rolleyes:

No, you have only said that you disagree, you actually haven't said why.
I thought we agreed to disagree some time ago, you must have got bored of the lack of attention and came back for more.
Take "your" money? What about the profit that my work generates? The taxes I pay? Is my work less valuable than yours? I'm not taking nobody's money, you ignorant bigot, I'm earning my salary, and my taxes also pay for people that are too lazy to get themselves a job, or maybe I have no right to complain about this cos I'm not English?

And you also have the courage to ask me why I call you names.. unbelievable!

again, points of view man. The right to bear arms has little to do with your hobby or hunting, if the right of self defence means being egocentric, then I'm one.

Totally agree, and I'd rather be armed.

Still going at it? You might as well give up Stern, there is nothing more persistent than a man trying to explain why he'd give up his freedom for security. There is no logical reason for it, there can be no good outcome except that of a slave with a benevolent master, so you cant expect logical reasoning to work. No matter what you say, it will be seen as a personal attack, so the only response you'll get are personal attacks after the party line has run out of steam.

I really, really love my UK friends, as I've said here before, but banging heads rarely helps. Both men just end up with a headache and opinions unchanged.

When I said Laws were a restiction of rights, you said they weren't. You said they were a 'restriction on behaviour'. But, you have repeatedly said that the current gun laws are affecting your rights. When I say the same thing you tell me I'm wrong. This is a direct contradiction.

Quote me where I've contradicted myself?

As for xenophobia, I'm talking to an individual, not an Itallian, who has sat there and listed all that is wrong with the UK, over and over again, if you were English I'd still say 'if you don't like it that much leave.' Your nationality is of no importance. I have not mentioned anything about Italy, you have mentioned lots of negative points, sterotypes and historical wrongs about the UK, and you call me a xenophobe.

So don't try and assasinate my character with slurrs like xenophobe, it is not true. You'll say anything to defend your hobby.

All I have ever said is I don't want the current guns laws changed, because at some point they will issue a licence to someone who shouldn't have one, because the authorities don't exactly fill me with confidence.

Less people in the UK died from being shot last year than died from farming accidents, where have we got it so wrong? Where are all these gun waving murderes that you need a gun to defend yourself?

With respect badaim, i'd disagree it's giving up a freedom for security, more surrenderibg a priviledge and a responsibility that can, in a small number of cases, be abused with horrible consequences. I doubt many would phrase narcotics prohibition with a curtailment of freedom, which could be taken as a parallel.

You quoted me, so seems you were talking to me. You also clearly implied I did not exercise my right to vote. And no, I don't think someone who either doesn't vote, or who votes without making an informed decision, is a responsible citizen. All laws obly offer an illusion of safety, it's only if people adhere to them that they are truly effective. I find your implied intention to only arm the employed and those living in "safe" areas rather disturbing though, and ironically extremely fascistic. One law for the rich much? Preventing gun ownership on economic terms would represent a horrific curtailment of the principles of equality that this country tries to live by. This delusion that the country is more dangerous and violent ignores crime statistics, or only reads them without also understanding the much improved level of reporting crime. Sounds very Daily "going to hell in a handcart" Mail.

The rioting stopped because all police leave was cancelled and they flooded the streets, not because the country had been stripped bare. Not a fast enough response, but that's not bei.g debated. Are greek and french police forces routinely armed? How about their riot handling ability?

Oh, and I find the idea of a corrupt uk government amusing when cited by an italian.

Some numbers. Which contradict SJ's Switerland theory - Taken from a UN crime study (2004). Country, followed by number of people murdered by firearms in a year.

# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
# 5 Philippines: 7,708
# 6 Mexico: 2,606
# 7 Slovakia: 2,356
# 8 El Salvador: 1,441
# 9 Zimbabwe: 598
# 10 Peru: 442
# 11 Germany: 269
# 12 Czech Republic: 181
# 13 Ukraine: 173
# 14 Canada: 144
# 15 Albania: 135
# 16 Costa Rica: 131
# 17 Azerbaijan: 120
# 18 Poland: 111
# 19 Uruguay: 109
# 20 Spain: 97
# 21 Portugal: 90
# 22 Croatia: 76
# 23 Switzerland: 68
# 24 Bulgaria: 63
# 25 Australia: 59
# 26 Sweden: 58
# 27 Bolivia: 52
# 28 Japan: 47
# 29 Slovenia: 39
= 30 Hungary: 38
= 30 Belarus: 38
# 32 Latvia: 28
# 33 Burma: 27
# 34 Macedonia: 26
# 35 Austria: 25
# 36 Estonia: 21
# 37 Moldova: 20
# 38 Lithuania: 16
= 39 United Kingdom: 14
= 39 Denmark: 14
# 41 Ireland: 12
# 42 New Zealand: 10
# 43 Chile: 9
# 44 Cyprus: 4
# 45 Morocco: 1
= 46 Iceland: 0
= 46 Luxembourg: 0
= 46 Oman: 0

What exactly is the UK doing so wrong? If UK gun control is there to protect the population, then it appears to be working quite well.

Technically it is. Holland must have got it awfully wrong otherwise. The day they'll manage to tax drugs, you'd be able to get em from your corner shop, just like booze and cigarettes.

[quote]
You quoted me, so seems you were talking to me. You also clearly implied I did not exercise my right to vote.
[quote]
No, it's Winny that doesn't vote, not you.

Fascist? Seriously? If you obey the law and conduct a respectable life, why should you be considered a fascist if you want to defend what you have? We all have a potential, it's all about what we can do with it. Some people are successful, some aren't, but some important choices are the key to our life achievements. I know plenty of respectable workers who live in difficult areas and they would have the same rights to bear arms like any other in my ideal society.

I think it really depends in the area you live man. I don't perceive my neck of the woods as an utterly safe one, I had a conversation with a police constable not so long ago on our local square, he said "yes, unfortunately this is not a safe area and we can't guarantee 100% cover". The introduction of CCTV systems for many was the solution, cos nobody with a sane brain would ever commit a crime and get recorded. Truth is that even that system (which is not pro-active anyway, but just a way to gather evidence), will do little as a deterrent for many (see what happened with the riots).
it's still not acceptable for a country and a city under constant terrorist threat (don't forget we're involved in war against a terrorist organisation). Again, many many people were dramatically affected by the riots, it wasn't just a case of shops being looted: people have lost their houses and belongings, some died, it's no light matter that can be dismissed like that.

As for the Greek and French, they're different cases altogether. What happened in Greece was a political issue, not a case of scumbags who realise that they can go and steal cos the police is doing nothing to stop them.
What happened in France is the result of a deep unresolved racial issue.

I never said that the UK government is corrupt, it surely isn't more than the average countries, and that's what I like about it, there are some cases, but it's petty stuff compared to other countries.

Italy's government is a bloody shambles, that goes without saying, and it's one of the reasons why I don't miss living in my country of origin that much.

you know what's ironic? If you put all these energies in getting informed about our rights and exercise your voting one you'd surely do yourself and your community a bigger service. But considering how lazy you are, it's easier like this, defending opinions that have been taken for you by your nanny state. I have no intention of rummaging through your posts any longer, sorry.

it's not a race on who has the better country, and it's Italian (since you're so pedantic about names' spelling).
It's not just me who "sits and lists" what's wrong buddy, have a look around: people that are informed and care about their country (more than you), are expressing growing concern.
well I think it was more a case of character suicide, when you admitted you don't vote. But hey, feel free to feed your denial and use me as a scapegoat.

And of course I'd say anything to defend my hobby (or my rights), I'm not a sheep.

as laws are now licenses can still be issued to wrong people. You still haven't explained me how a fullbore semiauto is worse than a 22rimfire semiauto, or why a muzzle loading revolver is less lethal than a pistol.

Of course, there are less than 50k guns for 60 millions of people! I don't need a gun to defend myself from a gun waving murderer, but potentially for anybody who would try and commit a violent assault to me, my family or my property. How can you be happy to live in a society where you can't even provide for your family protection? Is it just a case of "let's hope it's not gonna happen to me", then if it happens you'll still say "tough"?

You were at gunpoint yourself, which means that criminals can still get a pistol, so why shouldn't you? It's obvious that police forces can't limit the presence of illegal firearms in this country, so thank you very much, but I'd rather defend myself with my own means.
In that immediate stance you risked your life without being able to defend yourself. You hit the guy and he fled (which probably means his gun was fake), but what if you missed or if he decided he wanted more from you than just your wallet? It's insane to think you went through that and still think you shouldn't be able to ultimately defend yourself.

As for your statistic, please link your sources, it's a bit random otherwise, and data can be manipulated.

Do not confuse the right for self defense with the right to have a gun. If you have no idea how to use your fists, I'd advise a self defense course. Also helps a lot with Ego and the need to compensate..... with guns.

You know, mature person now would say "totally agree, and we will have to find solutions for that" or "totally agree, we need to plan ahead to reduce the potential dangers to a minimum, as we are all in this boat if we like it or not."

However, your reply.....immature, irresponsible, emotional driven and with implied contempt for the fates of others. Exactly the kind of mindset one does not want to connect to a gun to. Are you so bound to prove my point?

btw:

You only "need" to provide this protection if you create the conditions for that need. It's a self fullfilling prophecy, especially in tightly populated european countries. If a given society falls apart and violence spreads, then it would make sense to find the causes for that and solve it instead of fighting the symptons till the end of days.

I have been at gunpoint myself when I was 19. Still live, though, and so does the one holding that gun. But it did not even require me to punch him, just told him to either shoot or to stick it where the sun never grows and leave me alone. Guess what he did? As I said, I rather take the risk of being threatend with a gun then to make society much more dangerous in general for some dubious arguments mostly born of pure Ego.

I've done self defence courses man, and I know how to defend myself by just using my body, but above all I also know its limitations. If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris. If you're happy to gamble with your life good for you, I care about mine, and have seen and lived enough to leave it all to chance. Some stuff we can't control, but other we can.

And what's with this stereotype of ego that needs to be compensated with guns? That's quite ridiculous, and typical of someone who never handled one. It's like saying "that guy is driving a Ferrari cos he has a small penis".. grow up man, envy is a bad bad thing.

I already found the solution for it, it's just a case of you not agreeing with it. If you want to think you live in a perfect world, with bees flying and honey streaming from rivers, you're up for a shock. We will NEVER be a peaceful society, confrontation is in our DNA and has been happening for thousands of years. I don't see why it's not mature only cos it doesn't agree with yours, it's a bit arrogant, don't you think?
I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense.
I handled guns for years and never had a problem, you (and two others here) think of people with firearms like a bunch of gung-hos with holsters and guns in their socks, ready to jump at any given chance. It's not like that, I'm not for free carrying of firearms, I'm for discipline and security, a demand that is necessary for our society, since our authorities are obviously incapable of offering a suitable swift answer in case of an aggression.

A mentality like yours is one that relies not only on an utopia, but also little and selfish, which back inside is all about "let's hope it won't happen to me".

Take some responsibilities for your society and your family, claim your right to defend them, don't just wait and hope others will do it for you.

It actually surprises me that some of you three (if not all) have families and think they're providing them with an adequate protection.

It would seem to be the case bewolf.

Also stern, your ignorance of the underlying issues related to the riots, in comparison to your judgements of the french and greek riots is puzzling, if not just a vast oversimplification to justify your untenable stance.

I'd like to clarify my statement regarding not voting as well though - in some cases it is registering a discontent with the establishment, rather than a laziness issue, and if informed it is no less a responaible position to hold.

yeah, three of you fine armchair psychologists have finally assessed what's the matter with me.. thank God, now I can pursue a life of happiness and peace! THANKS! :rolleyes:

well whenever I go deep into parallels I get blamed of going off topic. But feel free to elaborate..
yeeeeah sure.. ever heard of blank vote? Don't try that card with me buddy, not voting is just plain lazy and ignorant.

I'll tell you then, I haven't.

Growing concern for what? And in this thread it is you sitting there rolling out stereotype after stereotype, and calling me xenophobic.

A scapegoat for what? I'm talking gun control in the UK

Ok, I don't vote because the majority of MP's seem to value profits over quality of life. UK govenrment suck up to big buisness. I exercise my right to not think that they are worth my vote. It's nothing to do with lazyness. Why should I vote for someone who I don't feel deserves my hard earned vote?
And who are you to tell me what to do with my vote? It's my vote.
You call me bigoted?

That much is clear


It's to do with the need to reload and the rate of fire. It's not about leathality (or all guns would be banned) it's about being able to shoot quickly. According to the law.




Look, I don't want a gun to defend myself. Is that your main reason for wanting a change in he law? So you can defend yourself? Against what? I thought you were a collector? Now it's about self defense? So you want to be able to carry your gun around on the street? I thoght you wanted responsible gun ownership? Properly stored? Or are you talking about defending your property?

News flash, I did defend myself.
Criminals carrying guns isn't anything to do with the handgun ban, that only affects law abiding people. Criminals by definition are not law abiding. They dont need a licence. All you're advocating is the use of lethal force for petty crimes. It's the Police's job to police. What happens when someone not as responsible as you gets a gun legally? Because it will happen.

In your world what would have happened is I pull out my gun, someone gets shot. For a robbery, the death penalty, I then get arrested for manslaughter.
A gun would have made the situation worse.

You already said that rioters should be shot. So the penalty for rioting and looting is death? How did the US handle the LA riots? They didn't machine gun the crowds as far as I can remember.

Defend myself against who? I have only seen one gun outside of a Military setting in this country in my entire life. The fact remains that in the UK last year 40 people were murdered using firearms. That is a very very small proportion of the population. It's not exactly the wild west here. I've said before that if things carry on the way they are then at some point in the future I may feel the need to arm myself to protect my family. But not now.
I'm much more likley to be run over than shot.

There were licenced gun owners in Cumbra at the time of the shooting, not one of them did anything. There are lots of licenced gun owners in Denmark, didn't help them either, or at any other mass shooting. In fact I'd go so ar as to say that in all the mass shootings around the world since WW2 a civillian has never shot dead the shooter. Again, It's the Police's job to police.

The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

And as for your pub comment, next time you're in Manchester let me know.

So when were you ever attacked by 6 robbers at the same time? You know, I actually do know people that never got robbed over their entire life. Actually, that applies to most people I know. This kind of argument makes it appear as if a robbery or a violent crime happens to anybody on a weekly basis and you always have to be prepared for it, as if we live here In Somalia or Iraq and death is only a trigger pull away. You are blowing the dangers of violent assault or armed robbery way out of proportion.

In fact, it is more likely that you get hit by a car or killed by a plane crash in Europe, even in the US, even in Russia and China. What's your solution to that? Never leave the house as it's the only means to protect your family? How can you be so afraid all the time?

Believe me, I know to handle a gun. I actually do have the same fascination with guns and weapons as everybody else. I'd not be playing this game in the first place if this was not the case.

However, there is a difference in admitting to have that fun and fascination on an emotional level, and actually realizing that and the consequences those instincts can have in the long run. It's a matter of self discipline you owe your own intelligence.
Btw, forgive my Ego puns. It was just too classic to not to use it.

The world is exactly what we make of it. Not more, not less.
Either you treat humanity as an instict driven, dangerous species that is a danger to itself and requires the constant need to violent retaliation and mutual assured destruction on an individual scale.

Or you treat them as a species that has the capability to overcome it's natural programming by applied intelligence.

Whatever view you chose, it applies to you as well.


Sorry, there are enough peaceful societies out there. These polemics lead nowhere. If you want to play the cynical "oooh the world is sooooo evil, kill or be killed! D:", feel free to do so, but do not expect to be taken serious with this lame world view. So how often were you beat up to make you that bitter? How many friends do you have if you think everybody is only out for confrontation? I very much suspect that your own life situation will disprove your words.

Men is a herd animal. He is contructed for cooperation. Even more important, the larger the coopertional body, the more complex and rewarding achievements can be accomplished. It's a matter of pure rationale.

Oh, btw, you will love that. There is a scientific argument that says that intelligence and rational discourse actually developed as a weapon as well, as those that were capable of employing their brain to win an argument had better chances to raise in the food chain. Maybe train that one a bit instead?

No, I consider gun addicts in general as cool and generous people that actually do not want to hurt anybody, but simply do not think though the problem of broadly applying their hobbies and dometimes very warped world views. And I have no idea how your authorities work, but ours are good enough to bring down crime rates for the last 200 years on a constant basis, living in a country and a society that grows ever more secure. And it does not require gun ownership.

You can't imagine how often I heared that Utopia argument. Appears to be standart in any such debate. Is there a handbook or something floating around titled "how to defend gun ownership for dummies" that I missed?

I will repeat, the world is what you make out of it. And the demanour you carry around will influence the people around you and vice versa. If you argue the world being such a bad place, it "will" become this place. It's like in the financial market, once you talk about a company losing it's trust, it "will" lose that trust. So if you are complaining about such a cruel world, then you actually help create it. Men is not a constant variable, the species always adapts to the situation and the signals given by others around.

Simple maths.

Allowing gun ownership and raising the risk of being shot in general due to a much higher number of weapons available even to people that have no connections to the black market, with a certain chance that maybe, if being threatend, I can actually make use of my own gun,

or

Having only the means to defend myself with my body and objects lying around, but with a hugely reduced chance of that ever having to become nessecary in the first place, especially when children starting to have their own lives at nights without me having the means to pretect them 24/7.

Sorry, you argue simply for your own sake here, Sternjaeger, do not try to bring others families in here with such lousy arguments. You can either take the hard road, set an example, swim against the stream and influence the people surrounding you in such a positive way that they themselves start to influence others, or you can let your standarts being dictated by the scum of this world and help them dragging everything down.

Just do not complain when the bill for that is served.

Brilliant. So your way of dealing with robbers and rioters would be to murder them all?

And you want to be able to own a gun?

And by the way I have 'spoiled' my voting card on 3 of the last 4 general elections. I went to the polling station and wrote none of the above.

So you're wrong again. Another massive assumption.

Just one more really.

Commendable post bewolf.

Uh?! When did I say that? :confused:
I already are, ta!

yes, of course :rolleyes:
it was based on what you said: "I don't vote".

You said about the rioters "What kind of low life scum idiot does what we saw happening? Someone we surely won't miss." Why would we miss them? Where did they go? The implication was shoot them.
You also said about robbers "If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris." Implying that if you had a gun (the subject about which we are talking) the outcome would be different. So unless they are attacking you in your house, you'd need to have that firearm in your possesion, in public. Which has nothing to do with your 'more explicit regulations' one of which was safe storage.

So now you're calling me a liar?

I didn't vote for anyone.
You assumed it was out of lazyness, which is lazy thinking.

yes, it's a stereotype until it hits you.

a scapegoat for your "character murdering", you're just preaching without any basis to support you, cos you don't even exercise your own basic rights.
..who's talking stereotypes now? :confused: if you met your local MP you'd tell him, in a mature conversation "I'm sorry but your government sucks up big business"?
no, you exercise your right not to think, which is the easier way out, delegating others for important choices, well done.
voting it's not also a right, it's also a duty, I'm sure you know this. I'm telling you off for the duty part of it that you don't respect, as another member of the same society.
yep, well mainly you're doing it all by yourself, I just like stressing on it.

Ah, that's what it is! Reload and rate of fire! Obviously you also know that a .22 semiauto is virtually recoilless and can be easily be used to bumpfire? Before you google it, bumpfire is when you hold the gun in a way that a semiauto can shoot a burst. With a .22 you can also shoulder aim and bumpfire. Now that's safe!

that's good, I'm not trying to sell you one.
I'm mainly a collector, the self defence is meant in your household, not around the city, I'm not Dirty Harry.

you were lucky, and you know it.
yeah, that's my point. Only I'm on the right side, the one of the law abiding citizen deprived of the option of defending themselves, instead of waiting for a police car..

No, it's call crime prevention by deterrent. We have nuclear warheads, but it's not like we dropped them in Afghanistan or Iraq, is it? They're there, gathering dust, with a big a$$ message on them "don't mess around with me, pal".

no, in my world criminals won't hang around looking for someone to rob, cos they might find themselves in front of the wrong end of a Glock. It's like the "beware dog" sign: you're not sure it's there, but don't feel like trying your luck..
Also, in our current society, a homicide done in self defence is not a crime, I thought you knew this..

What?! When did I say that?!

well you had a case yourself when you were attacked at gunpoint, so you should know. But as you said, this is a mild country with a lot of well mannered people, I don't see how owning a firearm would turn you into something abominable, it's not kryptonite..

that is quite a broad statement, and anyway try and say that to the families of the victims, I'm sure they'll be understanding.

a link, give me a link.
Yeah, so you can give me a lesson uh? As I told you before, my favourite pub is The Bank, I'm there once every two months, I'll let you know the precise dates, come and see me, you'll probably recognise me, I'll be the one with three other gentlemen, all police constables (friends, not custodians), you'll be the one with the halo of ignorance and bigotry. Uh and make sure you bring your voting card too, so I can use it as a coaster.

What?! It's your assumption! IF they get arrested and put in the slammer, I won't miss them.
..erm, Chuck Norris the man who kicks all a$$es, the internet joke about him being the ultimate a$$ kicker? The idea that anybody could have a gun is a deterrent, not shooting people in the face. You really have a distorted view of gun ownership.

You're nitpicking. It's not about whether I have a gun with me or not, but the potential, which would keep criminals far from me and my household. Don't think of me for a minute (I know you're obsessed), try and think of a lonely woman, who's physically weaker than a man on average, how's she supposed to defend herself in case of an attack? By talking herself out of it?

You said it, I called you other stuff.. besides what's this "so you're calling me this or that" bull? What are we, in primary school?

if you don't go to vote you're lazy, if you go and deliver a blank vote then you're not. You are telling me that you haven't missed one election since you've been eligible to vote and you always delivered blanks?

And how is locking rioters up relevant to a discussion on gun control?


No you used it as an example not me. If you were attacked by 6 robbers on the street what would happen?


What? Obsessed, I thought I was standing my ground in an argument? So we're arming single ladies now? Do they fit your own set of criteria as a responsible gun owners? How do the robbers know you've got a gun? How can something unknown be a deterrant. The crime figures in the USA don't support the deterrant argument. There are still roberies and buglaries.

Yeah, but I'm not lying. And your coment was ambiguous, I was clearing it up.
Are you?


Nope voted first time, and second, it's the last 3 times I spoiled. Not that it has anything to do with you.

So, who are we arming and where can they have a gun in their possesion according to your rules? Which you contradict when it suits you.

I just have to ask the question. Beowolf, Whinny and anyone else who may want to answer, why should you not be allowed to be armed? I know the answer, I just wonder if you know.

FYI the laws aren't uniform throughout the USA. Tell us what the rate of robberies is in jurisdictions where the State law allows citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

I know. I also know that in those particular states robberies in occupied homes are practically zero. But, USA has the 3rd highest number of fatal Shootings in the world - so you have 2 sides of the same problem. I was generalising.

There's no perfect solution.

EDIT: I do have the figures, by state, for roberies and assaults involving firearms, but I'm lost when it comes to the laws. Name a state and I'll tell you the figure.

USA might have the 3rd highest number of fatal shootings, but i could bet, that of those shootings, the majority didn't happen where guns are allowed!

California has the highest number of firearms murders.

Figures from the FBI.
First number is total murders, second number is total firearms murders, sorry about the format. (2009)

Alabama 318 229
Alaska 22 13
Arizona 328 197
Arkansas 171 107
California 1972 1360
Colorado 167 94
Connecticut 107 70
Delaware 41 31
D/OColumbia 144 113
Georgia 543 378
Hawaii 21 8
Idaho 22 5
Illinois3 479 386
Indiana 293 209
Iowa 34 11
Kansas 118 85
Kentucky 170 112
Louisiana 486 402
Maine 26 11
Maryland 438 305
Massachus's 169 93
Michigan 625 437
Minnesota 72 38
Mississippi 151 105
Missouri 381 276
Montana 28 19
Nebraska 40 23
Nevada 156 91
New Hamps 10 4
New Jersey 319 220
New Mexico 144 78
New York 779 481
North Carolin' 480 335
North Dakota 9 3
Ohio 502 311
Oklahoma 225 125
Oregon 83 41
Pennsylvania 658 468
Rhode Island 31 18
South Carolina 286 197
South Dakota 11 4
Tennessee 461 295
Texas 1325 862
Utah 37 25
Vermont 7 0
Virginia 347 229
Washington 169 101
West Virginia 76 38
Wisconsin 144 95
Wyoming 11 8

There are no figures for Florida. I don't know the individual state laws so I can't comment on which ones have strict laws and what that tranlates to.