SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Congratulations Sweden! And look who won Gold....

@ Stern

Semantics are important otherwise a question becomes loaded.

Your example of Muslims was a bad one. You cannot equate guns with religious beliefs as they are very different things. And my answer stands - a few bad apples do not spoil the whole crop. At a stretch you could equate them with drugs/alcohol.

The comparison stands on a level of a group of people that is identified by a specific feature (religion, gender, hobby...) and the reaction of people. You're ready to prohibit the use of guns to gun enthusiasts but not prohibit the following or the presence of a certain religious group whose a minority of members committed violent crimes all over the world? To me that's a double standard. And mind you, I'm not for the persecution, I'm for the integration and respect of different religions/hobbies, just don't like when someone comes at me and tells me what I can or cannot do without one valid reason, it's not hard is it?

You are entitled to defend yourself, family and belongings, just not with a gun (in the UK anyway). If you do use a gun then provided you're licensed etc you may well be acquitted unless you shoot whoever it is in the back.

good enough for me, still there are people here who shudder at the idea, yet support our troops using their guns in other countries... double standards again?

You equate a distaste for guns with being weak, selfish and showing a lack of responsibility? I equate it to being rational, intelligent and culturally advanced. Owning a gun doesn't make you more of a man - what a ridiculous belief. I think they are used to cover inadequacies down below.

that is SO hypocritical!! You feel rational, intelligent and culturally advanced, yet you're cool to send our military forces abroad to kill people for their own sake? Nice! Some of you lot are really a laugh...

Cool and nasty are subjective opinions. Cool is attractiveness because of form and function. For me guns satisfy both criteria. They're nasty because of what they were designed to do - kill things. This is regardless of target shooting etc, they still kill humans and animals. There is no contradiction here, it's like big furry spiders - they're cool but I really don't like them.

fair enough, I understand what you mean. To me they're interesting and deserving of respect.

Re Cumbria, imagine you live in a country that has lax gun ownership and arms their police. If you really want to kill people, does the fact that the police are armed stop you? Do some research in the USA.

Why is lax to arm your own police?! They're supposed to serve and protect you from situations out of the ordinary, and sometimes ones that might require lethal force. If this was unnecessary why having armed response unit? Don't you really see how ludicrous this all is?
The police does stop you indeed if they're armed and find you in the middle of shooting at people, they shoot your a** dead and rightly so, your argument is not valid.
Once again, the 3 major cases of shooting crimes in this country could have been stopped way before they got out of control, had the police officers that intervened on the scene straight away been armed. Let's not ever forget that. You're ready to stand in front of the graves of those innocents who died because of a government political agenda and say "yes, we did the right thing"?

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Once again, the 3 major cases of shooting crimes in this country could have been stopped way before they got out of control, had the police officers that intervened on the scene straight away been armed. Let's not ever forget that. You're ready to stand in front of the graves of those innocents who died because of a government political agenda and say "yes, we did the right thing"?

This argument works both ways: e.g Jean Charles de Menezes

Had those officers not been armed an innocent man would still be alive.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

This argument works both ways: e.g Jean Charles de Menezes

Had those officers not been armed an innocent man would still be alive.

sure, but you know why that happened? Because of incompetence. Police officers that live in one of the most important cities of the world should be trained on a level on par with the rest of the armed police forces in the world. It's again a political choice not to have armed response or anti-riot units that are competent enough, see what happened with the riots of last year as another example, that was good stuff, wasn't it? And you know why it happened? Cos police forces have been turned into a joke in this country. You keep on wanting to contain violence and threats with the wrong methods, applying common sense and society values to social layers that don't give a rat's bottom to your idea of nice and civilised society, and when there are no other choices left, you make mistakes because you're not adequately prepared to face such threats.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

sure, but you know why that happened? Because of incompetence. Police officers that live in one of the most important cities of the world should be trained on a level on par with the rest of the armed police forces in the world. It's again a political choice not to have armed response or anti-riot units that are competent enough, see what happened with the riots of last year as another example, that was good stuff, wasn't it? And you know why it happened? Cos police forces have been turned into a joke in this country. You keep on wanting to contain violence and threats with the wrong methods, applying common sense and society values to social layers that don't give a rat's bottom to your idea of nice and civilised society, and when there are no other choices left, you make mistakes because you're not adequately prepared to face such threats.

Its not just the UK. This is in the USA this year alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ed_States_2012

76 this month, more often than not due to the involvement of firearms.

In most of these cases the person killed had a gun but there are plenty of examples of unarmed people being killed by law enforcement officers. Oscar Grant in the USA, Alexandros Grigoropoulos in Greece (15 years old), Carlo Giuliani in Italy.

Unlawful killings aren't limited simply to mistakes in one country due to gun laws or training, they happen worldwide in different police forces.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Its not just the UK. This is in the USA this year alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ed_States_2012

76 this month, more often than not due to the involvement of firearms.

In most of these cases the person killed had a gun but there are plenty of examples of unarmed people being killed by law enforcement officers. Oscar Grant in the USA, Alexandros Grigoropoulos in Greece (15 years old), Carlo Giuliani in Italy.

Unlawful killings aren't limited simply to mistakes in one country due to gun laws or training, they happen worldwide in different police forces.

I'm sorry but this is just too simplistic, loads of people die every day for the most random reasons, law enforcement is surely one of the minor reasons, but in most cases they're not unlawful.

Carlo Giuliani's case is typical: he was taking part to a riot during the G8 in Genoa, he was wearing a balaclava and throwing a fire extinguisher against a carabiniere (who are all armed with a pistol), the man shot in self defence cos he's been jammed into his car and being attacked by all sides. You don't get shot in the face by a police officer if you don't attack them with an extinguisher, so let's not make confusion here. The use of lethal force for self defence is NOT a crime, and the judges discharged the officer of any charge.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

that is SO hypocritical!! You feel rational, intelligent and culturally advanced, yet you're cool to send our military forces abroad to kill people for their own sake? Nice! Some of you lot are really a laugh...

You're ready to stand in front of the graves of those innocents who died because of a government political agenda and say "yes, we did the right thing"?

Next time ask what my beliefs are before jumping to wild assumptions - this is not so much of a laugh as laughable.

Personally I don't think British armed forces should be abroad unless it is to deal with a threat to the country's nationals or interests. If there is a real and genuine threat then deal with it - is this not your own mantra albeit on a personal level?

Talking about semantics, I don't know what you mean by 'government political agenda.' If it's defending the Falklands, then I will support what my government did. If it's about Iraq and Afghanistan then I'd struggle. It will always be that for me the end must justify the means.

I'm ready to stand in front of the graves of people that have died through gun crime and say that I believe that the state of gun law in my country is good.

What would the families of the victims say if you told them that gun laws should be relaxed to allow more widespread ownership? Who knows...

Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Next time ask what my beliefs are before jumping to wild assumptions - this is not so much of a laugh as laughable.

Personally I don't think British armed forces should be abroad unless it is to deal with a threat to the country's nationals or interests. If there is a real and genuine threat then deal with it - is this not your own mantra albeit on a personal level?

so you think we should still have armed forces? I mean, do we really need them? Who's gonna attack us?

Talking about semantics, I don't know what you mean by 'government political agenda.' If it's defending the Falklands, then I will support what my government did. If it's about Iraq and Afghanistan then I'd struggle. It will always be that for me the end must justify the means.

the agenda is about disarming civilians to avoid problems or armed uprisings, no matter if good or bad. You really need to have a blind faith in your government and their coherence to be cool with that.. which one did you vote, the conservatives or the lib dems?

I'm ready to stand in front of the graves of people that have died through gun crime and say that I believe that the state of gun law in my country is good.

What would the families of the victims say if you told them that gun laws should be relaxed to allow more widespread ownership? Who knows...

Hood

The gun laws in our country are a political farce. I mean, do you really think that the regulations that are in place now make this country any safer?
The prohibition of pistols or semiauto guns doesn't make the ones that are left any less dangerous, does it? I can still own as many bolt action rifles as I want, and you know how lethal and fast loading a Lee-Enfield can be.
The gun restrictions that were put in place were just a cunning political move to make the best of a national knickers-in-a-twist moment, where once again people didn't think for a minute that maybe the nutjobs that did what they did shouldn't have been issued a license in the first place? No, it was easier to make the best of it, and taking guns off honest people who kept them for sport, hunting, as a family memory (just thinking about all the vets bring backs that had to be destroyed gives me the shivers).
And even when the Cumbria shooting happened, which to me was the evidence that is not a matter of gun ban or not, and proof of the stupidity of the ban, people still blamed the guns, not the shooters and the fact that society didn't do anything to control better and support these deranged individuals.
Yes, if you don't see nor understand this, unfortunately you're just cattle, and the government is your butcher.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

so you think we should still have armed forces? I mean, do we really need them? Who's gonna attack us?


the agenda is about disarming civilians to avoid problems or armed uprisings, no matter if good or bad. You really need to have a blind faith in your government and their coherence to be cool with that.. which one did you vote, the conservatives or the lib dems?



The gun laws in our country are a political farce. I mean, do you really think that the regulations that are in place now make this country any safer?
The prohibition of pistols or semiauto guns doesn't make the ones that are left any less dangerous, does it? I can still own as many bolt action rifles as I want, and you know how lethal and fast loading a Lee-Enfield can be.
The gun restrictions that were put in place were just a cunning political move to make the best of a national knickers-in-a-twist moment, where once again people didn't think for a minute that maybe the nutjobs that did what they did shouldn't have been issued a license in the first place? No, it was easier to make the best of it, and taking guns off honest people who kept them for sport, hunting, as a family memory (just thinking about all the vets bring backs that had to be destroyed gives me the shivers).
And even when the Cumbria shooting happened, which to me was the evidence that is not a matter of gun ban or not, and proof of the stupidity of the ban, people still blamed the guns, not the shooters and the fact that society didn't do anything to control better and support these deranged individuals.
Yes, if you don't see nor understand this, unfortunately you're just cattle, and the government is your butcher.

In order:

I'd rather not have armed forces but it's a deterrent writ large. This does not in my mind justify deterrents on a handgun level.

I didn't vote - I'm an ungulant so I cannot hold a voting paper and pen at the same time. Usually when I see paper I try to chew it.

The agenda to disarm civilians to protect an uprising is a conspiracy theory. Gun law has only recently become stricter and before that time you didn't see armed militia roaming the country.

What you don't understand, is that if it is easier to get a gun, that increases the likelihood of someone using a gun to kill a commit a crime. If you don't understand that, there's no point discussing it further.

About national service, I think it's a great idea but that's another topic entirely.

Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

In order:

I'd rather not have armed forces but it's a deterrent writ large. This does not in my mind justify deterrents on a handgun level.

ironically enough a deterrent might be more needed on a social level than on a national scale. Burglars and thugs commit crimes because they know the chances of being confronted by a bigger threat than they are are virtually nil.

I didn't vote - I'm an ungulant so I cannot hold a voting paper and pen at the same time. Usually when I see paper I try to chew it.

nice, so you don't do your basic duty of voting and still wanna say what's right and wrong? How am I supposed to take your opinion any serious? The extent of self-righteousness of some people is mind boggling..

The agenda to disarm civilians to protect an uprising is a conspiracy theory. Gun law has only recently become stricter and before that time you didn't see armed militia roaming the country.

..are you serious? Have you ever heard of Northern Ireland?!

What you don't understand, is that if it is easier to get a gun, that increases the likelihood of someone using a gun to kill a commit a crime. If you don't understand that, there's no point discussing it further.

I have never said that getting a gun should be easier, I'm just saying that this partial ban on certain guns is ludicrous, and even worse the sign that a government WILL NOT listen to the population, because they didn't even make a referendum for that, they just decided to apply it and that's it. This ban hasn't brought any relevant difference to the murder rates of this country, and if anything it demonstrated that this is not a democratic country. But as you said, you don't even bother voting, why would you care if they take your freedom away bit by bit?

[nearmiss]

Gun controls are bad for a principal reason.

The reason the framers of American constitution created 2nd amendment (gun freedom) for the right to own and bear arms in America wasn't for hunting and sport. The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

If Hillary Clinton crams gun controls through a United Nations treaty in opposition to the US Constitution she will become the Jane Fonda of this generation.
That isn't a place I think any intelligent person would want to be. Jane Fonda was a traitor and is probably one of the most hated people in America for giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, when America was at war in Viet Nam. All the Vietnam vets call her Hanoi Jane, and hate her, the spit on her, and curse her publicly even today. She did that 50 years ago, and the only thing that saved her from being prosecuted as a war criminal was the tremendous influence of her father, Henry Fonda. A man that all America loved.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm