RE: Effective Gun Control in England

RE: Effective Gun Control in England (Full Version)

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

Message

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:31:38 PM)
NRA web site - not that it is biased of cause!! And the thought of not neading to have and use these weapons never seems to enter the equation. ? Perhaps there are as many cases where the intruder shot the householder first because if he didn't he may get shot and,,,,,, well he had access to a gun anyway so may as well use it. Your argument could be out as ...."our society is so bad that we all have to carry a gun"............wonderful. Most parts of the US seem to be perfecly safe to walk around in and not consider guns. In fact you see far more police on the streets than in the UK, and hopefully the police have greater training on firearms than the average american citizen. I accept that for the US thre may now be too many guns in circulation to ever go back, but lets be honest that that is why so many get killed, maimed and injured with them.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:32:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll 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. These are offences - like carrying one, or having one in the house - not injuries. Nice try

FukinTroll -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:35:16 PM)
I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I live about 8 miles, as the crow flies, from a prison. They have more than occasional escapes and guess whose house is in the woods that they like to run to? Well they don't run here, but do go out of their way to avoid my house. In the USA people own guns and kill people who trespass, especially if they are in bright orange. Now give me statistics on the “handgun” vs “rifle/shotgun” statistics in the UK and the stats of gun related legal lethal force deaths in the USA and we could chit chat a bit more about it. More than once has the gun control folks used statistics to color their point only to have someone point out that many of those shootings were justified lethal force.

BeatMeDaily -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:36:30 PM)
gun control is hitting the intended target

farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:42:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac NRA web site - not that it is biased of cause!! And the thought of not needing to have and use these weapons never seems to enter the equation. ? Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. quote: Perhaps there are as many cases where the intruder shot the householder first because if he didn't he may get shot and,,,,,, well he had access to a gun anyway so may as well use it. Your argument could be out as ...."our society is so bad that we all have to carry a gun"............wonderful. Most parts of the US seem to be perfecly safe to walk around in and not consider guns. Um... The state with the lowest per capita crime rates has ZERO laws regulating ownership and carrying of handguns. Vermont. It is not a coincidence. So, it appears that in the SAFEST State, criminals fear the likelyhood of their potential victims being armed. Looks like a great deterrent. quote: In fact you see far more police on the streets than in the UK, and hopefully the police have greater training on firearms than the average american citizen. Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, who the Metropolitan Police gunned down when they panicd and lost their cool. quote: I accept that for the US thre may now be too many guns in circulation to ever go back, but lets be honest that that is why so many get killed, maimed and injured with them. "GO BACK"? Maybe y'all need to READ the 2nd Amendment. There's no BACK to go to. WE are armed. WE will remain armed. Anyone who ISN'T armed ISN'T a REAL AMERICAN in my opinion. Children and Mental Defectives NEED to be kept secure. Everyone else is responsible for their own self, family, friends, neighbors, city, county, and state. In that order.

FukinTroll -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 6:55:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. Do you think that is what Lindy and Michael Chamberlain are thinking?

petdave -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 7:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Most parts of the US seem to be perfecly safe to walk around in and not consider guns. In fact you see far more police on the streets than in the UK, and hopefully the police have greater training on firearms than the average american citizen. i'm guessing you've never spent much time at a public range where police also practice [:D] We also had a very reassuring case here a couple years back where a police officer came to pick up a shoplifter who had been caught and put in handcuffs by mall security... the shoplifter (still in handcuffs) somehow managed to get the officer's gun and murder him with it once taken outside. At the end of the day, you are responsible for your own safety. Not the police, not Congress, Parliament, the President, Queen, or Ayatollah. You, because you are the one with everything to lose. Firearms, and to various extent things like mace, pepper spray, and stun guns, can equal the playing field between predator and prey. They can also give a predator the upper hand, because they are tools, and can only do as much or as little as the hand that wields them, but nothing goes as far towards making a 5' 4" woman a formidable opponent to a 6' 2" weightlifter as a .357 Magnum. You can place your faith in the authorities to always be there when you need them, or you can trust people to obey the law, or you can trust yourself. ...dave

Sternhand4 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 7:21:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac NRA web site - not that it is biased of cause!! And the thought of not neading to have and use these weapons never seems to enter the equation. ? Perhaps there are as many cases where the intruder shot the householder first because if he didn't he may get shot and,,,,,, well he had access to a gun anyway so may as well use it. Your argument could be out as ...."our society is so bad that we all have to carry a gun"............wonderful. Most parts of the US seem to be perfecly safe to walk around in and not consider guns. In fact you see far more police on the streets than in the UK, and hopefully the police have greater training on firearms than the average american citizen. I accept that for the US thre may now be too many guns in circulation to ever go back, but lets be honest that that is why so many get killed, maimed and injured with them. Try the LA riots... police were nowhere to be found for days in some sections of the city.

caitlyn -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 7:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac 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. If I could suggest an alternative statement. (my view of course) The only arguments you ever seem to hear, are the emotional ones. In the many discussions on this board, concerning this topic, you have been given many rational and logical reasons, which I have watched you happily ignore, again and again.

popeye1250 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 7:34:42 PM)
Fargle, that's true about Vermont. You live in Vermont and you just put a gun in your pocket and walk out the door. No "permit" no nothing. Next door in New Hampshire they're going in that direction because they don't think, "you should need a "permit" to excercise a right." If you want a "permit" in N.H. you just go to the local cop shop, fill out a form, give them $10 and two weeks later you pick up your "permit." You can carry a gun concealed. Funny, in the state to the south where "Legless Ted" Kennedy lives you can't get a "permit" and the rate of housebreaks is twenty times that of New Hampshire and Vermont. You want to buy a gun in N.H. or Vermont you just walk into a gun store and show them your driver's lisense or other picture I.D. and they'll sell you a gun. In the "People's Republic" of Massachusetts it's almost impossible. Look at Washington, D.C. They completely banned guns and they've had the highest murder rate in the country for years now!

Sinergy -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 8:01:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac NRA web site - not that it is biased of cause!! And the thought of not neading to have and use these weapons never seems to enter the equation. ? Perhaps there are as many cases where the intruder shot the householder first because if he didn't he may get shot and,,,,,, well he had access to a gun anyway so may as well use it. Your argument could be out as ...."our society is so bad that we all have to carry a gun"............wonderful. Most parts of the US seem to be perfecly safe to walk around in and not consider guns. In fact you see far more police on the streets than in the UK, and hopefully the police have greater training on firearms than the average american citizen. I accept that for the US thre may now be too many guns in circulation to ever go back, but lets be honest that that is why so many get killed, maimed and injured with them. I was talking to a class today that was concerned about gun violence. I pointed out that a person using a gun is probably adrenalized and has lessened fine motor skills. Is probably not trained or experienced in firing a gun. Etc. I generally point out that the safest thing to do is simply turn and run away, which agrees with what several gun self defense experts who lecture our unarmed defense against the armed assailant classes state. The more distance you put between yourself and the gun being used against you the less likely they are to hit you. Besides which, the odds of taking a lethal shot are fairly minimal. I pointed out a situation that happened several years ago in New York. An armed person had a shootout with 12 police officers at distances up to 20 feet away. The police fired 72 rounds. They hit the suspect once. The buildings had bullet holes. The car had bullet holes. Etc. These are police officers who train on the range and use a gun professionally in adrenalized situations. Sinergy p.s. If somebody is going to kill you they will walk up to you while you are waiting in line at Starbucks for your no foam decaf low-fat latte and put a bullet between your eyes. If somebody points a gun at you and you are not dead, odds are fairly good they dont intend to kill you right then.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 8:02:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Gun related deaths per 100,000 population USA - Homocides 4.08 suicides 6.08 Switzerland - Homocides 0.5 suicides 5.78 England & Wales - Homocides 0.12 suicides 0.22 Japan - Homocides 0.04 suicides 0.04 3012 children were killed in the US by gunfire in 2002 75,685 people received non fatal fire arm injuries in the US in 2000 In England and Wales in 2003/03 there were 24070 fire arm offences 57% of which were airgun related. 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. In the US guns are killing and injuring more people each day than the Iraq war and Afghanistan combined. Gun control..........no................... waste of time .................. unless you want to stop killing people of cause !!!! So are you saying that none of these homicides would have taken place if guns did not exsist? How does taking away guns stop killing people with cause? After all, it's not like you really need a gun to kill someone. Knives, swords, clubs, arrows, screw drives, bare hands, and even pillows have all been known to be used by people wanting to kill other people.

FukinTroll -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 8:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. If somebody is going to kill you they will walk up to you while you are waiting in line at Starbucks for your no foam decaf low-fat latte and put a bullet between your eyes. If somebody points a gun at you and you are not dead, odds are fairly good they dont intend to kill you right then. That is dead on! (no pun intended) Anyone I level a gun on is going to tell St. Peter, Well I saw this really bright light! That was muzzle flare my son.

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 8:05:27 PM)
Anyone who depends on the police to protect them has pretty much already consented to be a victim. I would argue that most of the time police do not actually prevent crime, but merely punish (or attempt to punish) those responsible for committing the crime. In order for the police to be able to truly protect you, they would have to be omnipresent and omniscient - they would have to be everywhere. If someone were to invade my home right at this very minute, at best the cops could be here in 4-5 minutes. IF i could actually call them. However, I can have my .45 in hand within 5 seconds of hearing the door crash in and since I have taken responsibility for my own and my family's protection and practiced with my weapon, my chances are almost infinitely greater at preventing a crime from happening. Oh, and I can pretty much guarantee I'll save the taxpayers the cost of prosecuting the perpetrators. Win win.

Sinergy -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 8:48:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia Anyone who depends on the police to protect them has pretty much already consented to be a victim. I would argue that most of the time police do not actually prevent crime, but merely punish (or attempt to punish) those responsible for committing the crime. In order for the police to be able to truly protect you, they would have to be omnipresent and omniscient - they would have to be everywhere. If someone were to invade my home right at this very minute, at best the cops could be here in 4-5 minutes. IF i could actually call them. However, I can have my .45 in hand within 5 seconds of hearing the door crash in and since I have taken responsibility for my own and my family's protection and practiced with my weapon, my chances are almost infinitely greater at preventing a crime from happening. Oh, and I can pretty much guarantee I'll save the taxpayers the cost of prosecuting the perpetrators. Win win. I used to keep a kubotan on my keychain. Made it easier to keep track of my keys. One day I was going through airport security and the guard made me check it in my bags. Walked to the gate with the younger of my UMs, who asked me why they took it. I told him that technically it was a weapon. He said oh. I pointed out to him that the ironic thing about it all is that after 25 years of martial arts and self defense training and teaching, I am a lot more dangerous without it. Somebody breaks into my house, I wont waste 5 seconds (which is a long time under adrenalin) getting a weapon. I am all over that person like white on rice. Sinergy p.s. From a statistical standpoint, a person breaking in to a house is NOT looking to find anybody in there. Standing up and yelling "you tripped the silent alarm and the police are on their way" is usually enough to make them run away. Similarly, a person breaking in to a house probably is unarmed. Carrying a weapon while breaking and entering raises the criminal penalties dramatically, and it is safer for the criminal to just leave. p.p.s. more than 75% of all assaults on women are by a single, unarmed assailant. The assailant is not looking for a fight or a problem, he is looking for an acquiescing victim. Dont be one.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 9:15:09 PM)
Stern - LA riots - so failure of the police is the reason for having guns Caitlyn - I simply put down some statistics , the reactions demonstrated illogical emotions and arguments against the stats. Fangs - nope I'm saying that the % chance of succesfully achieving the murderous intent is increased with increased access to an efficient means of killing. Firearms tend to have a higher kill to just injure ratio than pick axe handles. Argo - why bother having laws and the police at all then. Should it be mandatory for all people from the the age of walking to carry a gun and decide on whoever is standing has god on their side and was right.................o yes they did that in the middle ages didn't they. Go on, just accept that in the US it is socially acceptable for large numbers of people to be killed and maimed due to firearms, for children to die because lots of people think they still live in those good ole years of the wild west. It is an inbeded cultural need. The lines in the constitution are just used as a cover...... This year in the US more people will be killed and maimed by its own citizens than in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. One is socially acceptable because of ..........?.............. and the other is causing massive internal angst.

popeye1250 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 9:23:32 PM)
Guns kill people? Following that sense of logic then Spoons make Rosie O'Dumbo fat.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 9:26:26 PM)
Her hands are probably just as efficient as the spoon................. .......and AK 47 or Magnum is a little more efficient than a smack in the mouth.........

Sinergy -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 9:26:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Stern - LA riots - so failure of the police is the reason for having guns [sarcasm] Exactly. When an angry and armed mob of 400 people come up your street, you can flash your .38 six shooter and make them all go away. [/sarcasm] quote: Go on, just accept that in the US it is socially acceptable for large numbers of people to be killed and maimed due to firearms, for children to die because lots of people think they still live in those good ole years of the wild west. It is an inbeded cultural need. The lines in the constitution are just used as a cover...... This year in the US more people will be killed and maimed by its own citizens than in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. One is socially acceptable because of ..........?.............. and the other is causing massive internal angst. Not really, Dtesmoac. I have issues with both of them. But I think the problem is not the firearms, the problem is the nature of the human psyche. It is the nature of the human psyche that murders people in the United States. It is the nature of somebody's human psyche that murders people in Iraq. The lines in the US Constitution are clear. They are intended to prevent government control of the citizenry. You want to stop guns being used by every Tom, Dick, and Harriet on the street, do what you can to get the gun lobby to lose a class action case where they are liable because their product was used in the commission of a crime. One side of almost every war the planet has seen for 60 years has been supplied by weaponry paid for by our government and then given to somebody to take the life of another human being. There has always been another country providing the weaponry to the other side. Did you ever stop to think it is not the person with the gun, or the gun, that is the problem? Maybe we need to outlaw gun manufacturers. Or, as Ike termed them, the military-industrial complex? They are so hot on guns, maybe they will be willing to invade Iran for us. Sinergy edited to add a quote

FukinTroll -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/24/2007 9:34:34 PM)
Hmmm... Sinergy, you reckon cars will be the next to get banned? People don't kill people cars do!

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875