RE: Effective Gun Control in England

RE: Effective Gun Control in England (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 2:23:28 PM)
dtesmoac, but if I put my mind to it I could figure out a way to kill dozens of people at a time, with out a gun. Fertaliser bomb come to mind right off hand

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 2:26:10 PM)
And thats the key point, ready availability makes the difference. If I loose my rag for 10 minutes it is access to the implement to inflict damage that is key. By the time I've built the bomb I will have calmed down.

luckydog1 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 2:30:15 PM)
very seldom does a person in a rage kill a dozen or so people. I would imagine mostly it would be be arson that they could do that. Most crimes that kill dozens + are preplaned, not a ten minute rage issue.

luckydog1 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 2:33:53 PM)
I do not have the numbers handy, But Guns prevent lots of crimes per year as well as are used in many. Guns are tools. People are the problem. If we do not have the ability to handle the freedom of powerful tools for self defense and hunting(its a right listed in the constitution), what other rights are we not able to handle, and should be taken away. If people can not handle the freedom of owning guns, why should they have the freedom to vote on what we do with the nuclear weopons for example? Or any freedom at all?

caitlyn -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 2:36:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac perhaps in the UK the weapon of choice (or most access is the fist or bottle) and so whilst an angry nutter can damage one or two people it is somewhat harder to kill a couple of dozen. In the US access to the means to take out a dozen or so may influence the crime figures. Can you prove any of this? Aren't the vast majority of murders, one on one crimes? Isn't it true that the numerically greatest multiple killer in the United States, is automobile accidents?

popeye1250 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 2:44:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac perhaps in the UK the weapon of choice (or most access is the fist or bottle) and so whilst an angry nutter can damage one or two people it is somewhat harder to kill a couple of dozen. In the US access to the means to take out a dozen or so may influence the crime figures. Can you prove any of this? Aren't the vast majority of murders, one on one crimes? Isn't it true that the numerically greatest multiple killer in the United States, is automobile accidents? Caitlyn, correct! And let us not forget Ted Bundy! He was a prolific killer who had no police record until he was caught for murders after about 12 years of commiting them. He could have gotten a gun at any time. His weapon of choice, strangulation. How many times do we hear about the very elderly killing people because they thought they hit the brake instead of the gas?

FukinTroll -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 4:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Gun related deaths per 100,000 population In England and Wales in 2003/03 there were 24070 fire arm offences 57% of which were airgun related. Damn! With that many gun related injuries/fatalities you think they would outlaw guns all together.

farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 4:15:59 PM)
quote: A) Your view that we need weapons (which, ultimately, threaten aggression and violence) for security - if I'm misinterpreting your post feel free to correct me. No that's about right. That's why we enshrined the right federally via the 2nd Amendment. It's pretty clear. The People cannot be secure unless armed. If you're not armed, you're at the mercy of anyone who is, and you're pretty much reduced to a Ward of The State, needing THEIR protection, rather than you protecting The State.

NorthernGent -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 4:24:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's pretty clear. The People cannot be secure unless armed. Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street?

popeye1250 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 4:57:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's pretty clear. The People cannot be secure unless armed. Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street? "Who is the danger?" I dunno N.G. it could be you! You're pretty shady looking in that picture!

farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 5:09:36 PM)
quote: Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street? Doesn't matter. The point is that when Danger Comes, you're prepared. IF the PASSENGERS on the airplanes hijacked on 9/11 were armed, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Heck, even after being systematically disarmed by the FAA, Pax on Flt93 STILL took the bastards down.

FukinTroll -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 5:24:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac In England and Wales in 2003/03 there were 24070 fire arm offences 57% of which were airgun related. Where 0% of the population is permitted to have guns. quote: In 2005/06 there were 50 gun related homocides compared to 10970 in the US. The population in the USA is 6 times that of England and Wales. Where 100% of the population, who have the right and choose to use it, legally has guns. quote: In the US guns are killing and injuring more people each day than the Iraq war and Afghanistan combined. Aren’t statistics fun? Do you have a break down of legal use of deadly force?

LadyEllen -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 5:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's pretty clear. The People cannot be secure unless armed. Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street? Maybe Queen Elizabeth II. She must have something against NG, given his opinion on her. But then, she's likely never heard of him, which sort of makes one wonder whether NG's views on the threat she poses are entirely rational or reasonable..... Damn I'm good E

Sternhand4 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 5:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's pretty clear. The People cannot be secure unless armed. Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street? Here's a site that details every day how firearms are used legally.. http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp

petdave -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 5:54:41 PM)
quote: Seatonstomb quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn As a matter of fact, do you see a bunch of American making post after post, complaining about anything you do in your country? Gun control in England ... GREAT ... if that's what you want. I'm not from England, so it's not my business. Actually, i'm troubled by a lot of what goes on in England, particularly the surveillance state items that Seatonstomb listed. The U.S. still has that historical and cultural link to England, and it's foolish to assume that we are immune from the kinds of things that the politicians are able to get away with there. We're already seeing larcenous use of traffic cameras. A few thoughts... Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, the worst mass murder in U.S. history was perpetrated with a dollar worth of gasoline. Second place? Dynamite. i collect early semi-automatic pistols and old rifles as a curiosity. While they are not paperweights, they are the next closest thing, as they rarely leave the safe. While some of them almost certainly have killed people in the past, they pose no reasonable threat to anyone or anything. Statistically, my truck is far more dangerous. As best i could determine from Internet research prior to traveling, it seems to be illegal to carry any knife with a locking mechanism in England, meaning that they're only safe if they can close unexpectedly on your fingers.If that's not government logic, i don't know what is. ...dave

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 very seldom does a person in a rage kill a dozen or so people. I would imagine mostly it would be be arson that they could do that. Most crimes that kill dozens + are preplaned, not a ten minute rage issue. I was replying to your fertilizer bomb item. Most crimes where guns are used would not be suitable for bombs - give me the money or I blow us all up.........!! Take the school shootings - access to firarms is as big an eleemnt as being sick in the head. The rate of deaths from firearms is proportional to their availability. e.g. Suicide rates.

farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's pretty clear. The People cannot be secure unless armed. Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street? Here's a site that details every day how firearms are used legally.. http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp http://www.jpfo.org

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac perhaps in the UK the weapon of choice (or most access is the fist or bottle) and so whilst an angry nutter can damage one or two people it is somewhat harder to kill a couple of dozen. In the US access to the means to take out a dozen or so may influence the crime figures. Can you prove any of this? I used the term may to illustrate a point. The rate of intent to physically threaten, damage maim or kill may be the same in the US and UK but because the access to a more effective mechanism for causing severe injury and death is far greater in the US then this is likely to have an impact. e.g. arm 2000 people with knives and 2000 with handguns I suspect knives will loose out. Also accidental death from knife wound whilst achievable is harder than from a firearm. Aren't the vast majority of murders, one on one crimes? Yes and? Isn't it true that the numerically greatest multiple killer in the United States, is automobile accidents? As is the case in most developed countries, but the number of deliberate attempts to kill others is fairly low so not direcly comparable with firearms. The different rate of vehicle rates between countires is also quite interesting though. I get the connection you are making with fire arms?

NorthernGent -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:18:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle http://www.jpfo.org If accessing a site is what's on offer, then let's end the chat. Alternatively, just give me your opinion.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:24:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac In England and Wales in 2003/03 there were 24070 fire arm offences 57% of which were airgun related. Where 0% of the population is permitted to have guns. Incorrect, it is more tightly regulated but shotguns and some other firearms can be legally owned. In fact 119560 Fire Arm Certificates were issued in 2001 and 577171 Shot gun certificates. The vetting process also as lady Ellen has pinted out involves people being screened by the police. Handguns are illegal plus many other types of weapon. Most can not be stored other than at shooting clubs. quote: In 2005/06 there were 50 gun related homocides compared to 10970 in the US. The population in the USA is 6 times that of England and Wales. Where 100% of the population, who have the right and choose to use it, legally has guns. quote: In the US guns are killing and injuring more people each day than the Iraq war and Afghanistan combined. Aren’t statistics fun? Do you have a break down of legal use of deadly force? Statistics are always fun. More guns = more fatalities and injuries from guns More access to guns = more people deliberately and accidentally killed by guns The aguments used by Americans to justify gun ownership are emotional not logical, the nra has an emotional attachment and then finds arguments to justify it. Just be honest. In the Utah Shopping Mall killings recently an armed off duty police officer managed to prevent futher deaths. If the shooter had not had access to firearms the police officer would not have needed to. In the US gun owenership is a genie to far out of the bottle. In the UK the genie could be kept in the bottle for a little while later by having an automatic 10 year prison sentance for carrying an illegal fire arm.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875