Anti-gun laws working well in England Merged Rifle In Every Pot

[roomy]

Enough faith that they will get to you before whoever is trying to assail you, kills you? I have plenty of fath in ours but know they are not supermen with the ability to overcome such obstacles as space and time.

This is very basic easy math: Group A is law abiding gun owners, B is non-law abiding. x = all guns held by both groups.

represented as an equation the thought is that if A + B = X , then A + B - X = 0 (guns) thus B = 0. I can't see why anyone would be worried about A.

This assumes that for god know what reason B is just gonna give 'em up. In reality what you would be left is A - X = B.

It's just plan stupid to think that getting rid of all guns (making them illegal) will actually get them away from the people you are afraid of using them.

The reality of the situation in Britain is, we don't have a major gun crime problem, infact it hardly registers.All unlicensed guns are illegal, always have been.There are stringent laws in place for anyone wishing to own a gun for sport or shooting clubs, always have been.Other than sport and shooting clubs there are no reasons to own a gun in this country.

 

[Dr Grump]

Settling disputes with fist fights is your idea if civilized? Grump, it is clear that the problem with your country is that it is NOT civilized in the first place--if it were, you'd have no problem with your folks having guns, would you?

I think any despute solved by fighting is uncivilised, however there are degrees of civilised. Me giving you a black eye is slightly more civilised than putting you six foot under, no?

I think I understand you clearly, even if you don't understand yourself. I think I can recall 3 or 4 instances in this very thread where you stated clearly that you don't think guns cause crime. Yet you ask me to provide for you the number of murders caused by guns and baseball bats; a question whose explicit premise is that guns and baseball bats in fact do cause crime--a premise inconstent with your assertions. However, fully consistent with my own assertion that guns and baseball bats do not cause crime, I say they don't.

Again, you are being disingenuous. It is a term I use, but you know I mean where guns or baseballs bats are used as weapons. Instead of answering the question you bob and weave, because we all know that guns are used FAR more times than a baseball bat. You are dealing with absolute statements without taking the idiosyncratic way I post. Now, if you were a dumbass, I could understand. You are not. It "helps" your case if you interpret me literally. More power to you..

First, what society are you talking about? Secondly, your Toms, Dicks and Harrys don't have a choice--you've legislated it away. Third, I know you're for limiting how guns are obtained, and what types are obtainable, but you always avoid telling me the rational criteria for establishing such limits--all you've submitted thus far is that you don't like some guns.

Yep, our society does not like the idea of people running around with hand or fully automatic guns because we don't believe, as a society, there is any rational reason for having such weapons readily available. That is our ONLY rationale, and one we are happy with. And Tom, Dick and Harrys' DO have a chioce, they can go get a shotgun, 303, .22 etc after obtaining a license. You say re baseball bats and guns, that dead is dead. Is anybody any more alive if they have been shot by a .22 or a fully auto Tec 9?

You still have not stated how many guns the English had prior to the 1996 gun legislation. Until you do, you can't make the claim that "there were hardly any guns there to begin with.

Yeah, I can because I lived there. I know 1) How often guns are debated (not often) and anecdotal evidence of how many people had them (not many). See Roomy's responses too. he lives there.

Nonsense. Your refusal to read my posts and the sources cited are not my failure to provide proof.You sure are. It has, I provided proof, you didn't look at it, and then claimed I didn't provide it.
But you are willing to assert that because there are more murders in the US than in England, there is a greater violent crime in the US than in England; and since there are more guns in the US than in England, guns are the cause of the greater violent crime rate (that you manufactured out of nothing), and that US society is somehow less civilized.

I have read your posts. We are talking two different things. Violence and homicides. We need to differentiate. Gun homicides in the US are over 25 times higher. That is in my link (UK 0.11 per 100,000, US 3.72 per 100,000). Violent crime is not measurable to the same degree as your own links point out (which I'll get to in a minute).

Oh. You didn't claim England's gun control laws of 1996 were responsible for the decline in Englands violent crime rate from an apex in 2002/03 that you pointed out with graph you linked to. Nor did you mean to imply such correlation. It does beg why, you supplied it, but I'll fix my reply, to replace my offending use of the word "you" to "I", as appropriate, because it does not change my point one bit; and I will place it in it's appropraite context because doing so blocks your transparent attempt at misdirection.

Nothing transparent at all. You have inferred that England's gun control laws were responsible for homicide and/or violent crime increases. You have no proven that assertion one iota.

It is not disingenuous to argue, based upon the correlation that you deny exists, that the dramatic rise in violent crime rate (that you deny is a higher violent crime rate than that of the US) after adoption of the 1996 legislation is, at least, one result of that legislation.

Of course it's disingenuous when you fail to mention any other criteria that could have been the cause of the affect, and when you openly admit you have no idea how prevelent guns were/or were not in English society. Until you do that, it is disingenuous. As I have stated over and over again, you can still get a firearm in England. You could be right, but you haven't proved it.

BTW and FYI: Recorded crime statistics show a 2% increase in violent crime in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05.

And while gun control laws are being relaxed in the US, including the ban on assault/wicked-cool-looking weapons, violent crime rates have declined (since 1994), reaching the lowest level ever in 2005.

And better yet,
I was worried that the lightly stale statistics I have used to demonstrate how entirely wrong you are about this might be the reason you have steadfastly resided in this state of denial of yours--so I tried to get the freshest data I could, and what do I discover?

YOU ARE STILL WRONG!!!!!!

There were 1,220,198 recorded violent crimes in 2005/06, an increase of two per cent.

The population of the UK is 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.)

Which amounts to a crime rate of 20.13 violent crimes per 1000 in the UK.

There were about 5.2 million violent crimes in the US in 2005.

The population of the US is 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)

Which amounts to a crime rate of 17.42 violent crimes per 1000 in the US.

That's 20.13 (and rising) in the UK, vs 17.42 (and falling) in the US.

The crime rate in the US is lower than the crime rate in the UK.

Savvy that Jasper? THE CRIME RATE IN THE UK IS HIGHER THAN THE CRIME RATE IN THE US!!!!

CRIME RATE = HIGHER IN THE UK!!!!!

NEVER FORGET!.

Your stats certainly back up your assertion, but there are a couple of little nuggest that need pointing out. From your UK link..
1) Numbers of recorded crimes are affected by changes in reporting and recording practices
2) Of these, 17 per cent were common assault (including assault on a constable) and 20 per cent harassment,
while your US link says
1) 5.2 million violent crimes (rapes or sexual assaults, robberies, aggravated assaults and simple assaults
You think if harrassment was added to your stats those figures would change...dramatically.

That aside, it is increasing in the UK. Due to 1996 legislation?
See Roomy's comments on the Yardie gangs (Jamacian drug gangs)...

Nowhere in my answer you cite from post 78 do I claim "...guns would save [me] from a tyrannical govt.Nor did I say I was not afraid that a tyrranical government might gain control of my nation--I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. will say this now: Without guns, I, and others like me, alone or together, have no chance what-so-ever to resist a tyrranical government.

See this is what I mean about you and semantics and being disingenuous. You spend the first couple of sentences explaining to me that you didn't say something, then in the last sentence you say, that you did agree with its premise. So you were just taking some sort of warped moral high ground, but agreeing with the premise. That's just being silly.

defend your notion that gun murder is such an "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act", so much so, that "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" becomes the primary consideration for restricting only guns, and somehow takes precedence over other allegedly less violent means of murder.

When that means is used far more than any other means compared to other like countries? Absolutely.

Then stop rationalizing your problem with guns through concerns over murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization...just explain the problem you have with guns.

To me, you 2nd was written at a time when countries were eternally at war with each other and Europe was playing the Great Game, with the American colonies wanting independence. It made sense back then. Now, as time has gone on, that type of "right" is no longer necessary. To me, I see it as heading down the slippery slope of every man and his dog walking around with full autos scared of their own shadows. No matter how you cut it, gun deaths in the US are FAR higher than any first-world country. There seems to be only two main reasons for this 1) it is due to the number of guns available 2) the US is inherently a violent society. I have found over the five years I have debated this topic with Americans, that it is too late for your society to change. You somehow equate guns as a necessary means of self defence, and that somehow, they will save you from all of life's evils. That is fine. All I'm doing is offering my opinions and reasons for my stance, as you are yours. All interesting BTW. But don't worry Loki, I neither have the means OR the will to take you guns...

 

[LOki]

I think any despute solved by fighting is uncivilised, however there are degrees of civilised.

Agreed, and agreed.

Me giving you a black eye is slightly more civilised than putting you six foot under, no?

No.

Yep, our society does not like the idea of people running around with hand or fully automatic guns because we don't believe, as a society, there is any rational reason for having such weapons readily available. That is our ONLY rationale, and one we are happy with.

No rational reason to own hand or fully automatic guns is not rational criteria to limit ownership of hand or fully automatic guns.

And Tom, Dick and Harrys' DO have a chioce, they can go get a shotgun, 303, .22 etc after obtaining a license.

I don't know the particulars of your county's gun control laws, because I don't know what country I'd be talking about, but, your Toms, Dicks and Harrys' have no choice in the matter of being put on a government list of (potential) criminals for engaging in an otherwise NON-criminal action. Their choices are limited, apparently, to only those particular weapons sanctioned by your government--limitations place for no apparent rational reasons, and choices they don't have.

You say re baseball bats and guns, that dead is dead. Is anybody any more alive if they have been shot by a .22 or a fully auto Tec 9?

No. That is exactly my point. I hope you get it.

I have read your posts. We are talking two different things. Violence and homicides. We need to differentiate.

YOU need to differentiate. I am consistent with my usage of "violent crime", "murder/homicide", "gun crime" and "gun murder."

You consistently interchange them, I suspect, for the purposes of obsfucating the baseless arguments of your postion.

Gun homicides in the US are over 25 times higher. That is in my link (UK 0.11 per 100,000, US 3.72 per 100,000). Violent crime is not measurable to the same degree as your own links point out (which I'll get to in a minute).

Yes, and your point is?

Nothing transparent at all. You have inferred that England's gun control laws were responsible for homicide and/or violent crime increases. You have no proven that assertion one iota.

I have supplied as much evidence in support of the notion that England's gun control laws were responsible for homicide and/or violent crime increases, as you have in support of your notion that US gun ownership is responsible for the murder rate in the US. I have actually presented better evidence, as yours fails under direct scrutiny.

Your stats certainly back up your assertion, but there are a couple of little nuggest that need pointing out. From your UK link..
1) Numbers of recorded crimes are affected by changes in reporting and recording practices

Which might change the rate of increase, but not the rate--leaving the comparison to the US violent crime rate valid.

2) Of these, 17 per cent were common assault (including assault on a constable) and 20 per cent harassment,

"common" assault is still violent and crime (even if it's assault on a constable)

while your US link says
1) 5.2 million violent crimes (rapes or sexual assaults, robberies, aggravated assaults and simple assaults
You think if harrassment was added to your stats those figures would change...dramatically.

Sure, but if you add back the >15,000 rapes and other violent crimes that the English consider sex crimes rather than violent crimes...not so dramatic, eh?

That aside, it is increasing in the UK. Due to 1996 legislation?
See Roomy's comments on the Yardie gangs (Jamacian drug gangs)..

Although I normally find Roomy's posts to be incoherent and irrational, I am reluctantly (and only tentatively) suggesting that his post regarding Yardie Gangs actually supports my postion and not yours.

Gang members, unencumbered by the notion that their guns must be "legal," or the thought that gun-control-law abiding citizens might possess effective self-defense tools, are vicimizing those gun-control-law abiding citizens, who are encumbered by the fatuous notion that any gun they own must be "made" legal through irrational registering and licensing requirements.

See this is what I mean about you and semantics and being disingenuous. You spend the first couple of sentences explaining to me that you didn't say something,...

Which I did not, in fact, say; and...

...then in the last sentence you say, that you did agree with its premise.

...the premise of which I don't agree with.

So you were just taking some sort of warped moral high ground, but agreeing with the premise. That's just being silly

Nope. You should get used to the idea that I certainly know what I am saying, even though you don't; and that I know what you are saying, even though you don't.

What you need to do, is defend your notion that gun murder is such an "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act", so much so, that "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" becomes the primary consideration for restricting only guns, and somehow takes precedence over other allegedly less violent means of murder.

When that means is used far more than any other means compared to other like countries? Absolutely.

Yes, I know that's your notion--I ask you to defend it with some sense, not just agree with yourself.

To me, you 2nd was written at a time when countries were eternally at war with each other and Europe was playing the Great Game, with the American colonies wanting independence. It made sense back then.

And it still does, particularly since it's premise still makes sense.

Now, as time has gone on, that type of "right" is no longer necessary.

Demonstrate.

To me, I see it as heading down the slippery slope of every man and his dog walking around with full autos scared of their own shadows.

And you criticize those who don't trust their government...

No matter how you cut it, gun deaths in the US are FAR higher than any first-world country. There seems to be only two main reasons for this 1) it is due to the number of guns available 2) the US is inherently a violent society.

1) I can agree only as far as "gun deaths" are concerned, and not violent crimes (including those without gun involvement)--and that only as far as one can say, "If there were no guns, people could not use guns (but still anything else that they've found convenient thoroughout history) to kill other people."

This desperate clinging to a "gun death" argument, particularly if it's meant to mean murder, is desperate clinging to the patently faulty premise that guns cause murder (or death, as the case may be).

This "gun death" argument of yours remains meaningless to the point.

2) If violent crimes are the measure by which a society is judged more violent than another, I have demonstrated that the US is less violent than the UK.

So what is your point?

I have found over the five years I have debated this topic with Americans, that it is too late for your society to change.

So?

You somehow equate guns as a necessary means of self defence, and that somehow, they will save you from all of life's evils.

You're not getting that from me, and I don't know the exact flavor of gun-nut you otherwise limit your discussions to.

That is fine. All I'm doing is offering my opinions and reasons for my stance, as you are yours.

If only you'd offer some rational reason, even any reason other than simply, "I don't like guns, and that's all the rationale I need."

 

[Bern80]

The reality of the situation in Britain is, we don't have a major gun crime problem,

Then why did your gov't feel the need to restrict them so severly?

infact it hardly registers.All unlicensed guns are illegal, always have been.There are stringent laws in place for anyone wishing to own a gun for sport or shooting clubs, always have been.

Here as well

Other than sport and shooting clubs there are no reasons to own a gun in this country.

An awful argument. There are any number of reasons not to own any number of things. If I want one, and they're not a problem - as you stated above - why shouldn't I be able to have one? I'm sure I could find any number of things that you have but don't 'need'. And why is the ability to effectively defend oneself not a good reason?

 

[Bern80]

To me, you 2nd was written at a time when countries were eternally at war with each other and Europe was playing the Great Game, with the American colonies wanting independence. It made sense back then. Now, as time has gone on, that type of "right" is no longer necessary.

That is not something tha can be accuratley predicted. In fact, it would seem there are a couple contries around the world that may want to worry about the machinations of their gov't (North Korea).

To me, I see it as heading down the slippery slope of every man and his dog walking around with full autos scared of their own shadows.

To go down said slope, a couple of incorrect assumptions need to be made. 1)they are scared....of what? 2) Everyone actually wants one. We know that isn't the case because while the U.S. has restrictions in place, there is the means for almost (law abiding) anybody to obtain a gun. Not everyone has one.

1) it is due to the number of guns available

This is partly true. Not so much that many guns were but that 'a' gun was available. and somewhat related to the next point

2) the US is inherently a violent society.

Compared to other countries, not really. Take your pick of Middle Eastern countries. Again PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, seriously think about this. How did you come to the conclusion that the US is a violent society? Have you spent any length of time here? You have not indicated thus far that you have been. You can not claim to know what truly is, based only on what you have been exposed to. I'm sure it's not feasible, but just come here and live for a while, hell I'll put you up.

However, our negative trait more accurately is that we are an instant gratification society. A mind set (unfortunatley) that guns facilitate quite well.

I have found over the five years I have debated this topic with Americans, that it is too late for your society to change

change how?

You somehow equate guns as a necessary means of self defence, and that somehow, they will save you from all of life's evils. That is fine.

Patently 100% false. On the contrary the majority of gun owners did not purchase them out of neccessity. There are very few people who need them to survive. We don't feel they are neccessary, we feel (and legally is) we should be able to choose, however. That is what freedom is. When you eliminate choices you eliminate freedom, period.

 

[Dr Grump]

That is not something tha can be accuratley predicted. In fact, it would seem there are a couple contries around the world that may want to worry about the machinations of their gov't (North Korea).

I only compare the US to similar, democratic, constitutional republic countries that fall into the first-world definition. North Korea does not fall into that category in any way, shape or form.

Compared to other countries, not really. Take your pick of Middle Eastern countries. Again PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, seriously think about this.

I have thought seriously about it, and I am not comparing the US to those types of countries. If you want to feel better/take a moral high stance over the likes of Saudi Arabia or Iran, it's pretty easy to feel good about yourself. Notwithstanding that, it is comparing apples and oranges.

How did you come to the conclusion that the US is a violent society?

Because it has a murder rate of 5.29 per 100,000 people. Well above other first-world countries. I'd call that violent.

Have you spent any length of time here? You have not indicated thus far that you have been.

All up about six weeks and I had a ball. Great place, great people! Never met an American in real life I didn't like. Cyberspace is another issue...heh. I think America gets a bad rap - some of it deserved, some not so. I guess that is what come with being the biggest kid on the block. Britain had the same problem when "the sun never set on the British Empire"...
Having said the above, one of the main planks you guys give is to protect yourself. if the US is not that violent, why do you need to protect yourselves?

However, our negative trait more accurately is that we are an instant gratification society. A mind set (unfortunatley) that guns facilitate quite well.

I'd agree with that, but most first-world countries are going that way.

Change how?

YOur mindset re guns/firearms

Patently 100% false. On the contrary the majority of gun owners did not purchase them out of neccessity. There are very few people who need them to survive. We don't feel they are neccessary, we feel (and legally is) we should be able to choose, however. That is what freedom is. When you eliminate choices you eliminate freedom, period.

OK, some of life's evils. I think the ability to chose, in certain types of societies, should be challenged with certain things. Like vehicles for instance, or aeroplanes, or trains, or firearms.

 

[Bern80]

Again PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, seriously think about this. How did you come to the conclusion that the US is a violent society?

Middle east pt was not what I was asking you to think about, wanted it quoted more like above. Might change your response some. Is based solely on that stat? Is it media exposure? First hand account? what?

I only compare the US to similar, democratic, constitutional republic countries that fall into the first-world definition. North Korea does not fall into that category in any way, shape or form.

It does in that you referred to the purpose of the 2nd ammendment and gov't tyranny.

Because it has a murder rate of 5.29 per 100,000 people. Well above other first-world countries. I'd call that violent.

And in your time here, how much of that murder rate did you experience yourself?

All up about six weeks and I had a ball. Great place, great people! Never met an American in real life I didn't like. Cyberspace is another issue...heh. I think America gets a bad rap - some of it deserved, some not so. I guess that is what come with being the biggest kid on the block. Britain had the same problem when "the sun never set on the British Empire"...
Having said the above, one of the main planks you guys give is to protect yourself. if the US is not that violent, why do you need to protect yourselves?

Again it is not that I feel a gun is necessary to protect myself. It's that I want the option of that means to do so should the need arise. It's the old, I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

To me there has to be something that you experienced indicating that guns our bigger issue than what you say you've experienced first hand

YOur mindset re guns/firearms

Couple things i'd like clarified here. Does the 'you' refer to me? if it does i guess to respond I would have to know what you think my mindset about guns is.

OK, some of life's evils. I think the ability to chose, in certain types of societies, should be challenged with certain things. Like vehicles for instance, or aeroplanes, or trains, or firearms.

I agree, just not on guns. I believe gov't should interfer in our choices to the extent that our choices interfer with the freedoms of others. We have laws in place for gun violence and ownership guidelines.

America's mentality about guns is not what you think it is. People like myself get up in arms about it (no pun intended) because it become fairly clear to us that the anti-gun crowd has formed there opinion based on about 5% of the gun carrying population and completely discount people like myself who despite owning a gun, using it for violence is the furthest thing from my mind. I would further maintain that if you were to spend any amount of time with such a person your thoughts would change and therefor may not be right about this. That, I think you would have to acknowledge. That being the case do you want to find the truth or do you want to make argument in an attempt to convince yourself you're right?

 

[roomy]

Then why did your gov't feel the need to restrict them so severly?



Here as well



An awful argument. There are any number of reasons not to own any number of things. If I want one, and they're not a problem - as you stated above - why shouldn't I be able to have one? I'm sure I could find any number of things that you have but don't 'need'. And why is the ability to effectively defend oneself not a good reason?

More like the ability to effectively kill someone rather than defend oneself, IMO, so I still see no real reason to carry one.

If defense is what you are after wouldn't body armour not suffice?or do you wear that too?

 

[Annie]

More like the ability to effectively kill someone rather than defend oneself, IMO, so I still see no real reason to carry one.

If defense is what you are after wouldn't body armour not suffice?or do you wear that too?

Locks and alarm systems? While preventative rather than a second line, as I would assume body armor, guns are not the first line.

In actuality, some American's desire to excercise their second amendment rights has little to do with crime, but a legacy of always 'being prepared'.

 

[Annie]

I came across this from the CDC, it's a few years old:

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r031002.htm

Press Release
Embargoed until Noon
October 2, 2003 Contact: CDC, Media Relations
404-639-3286
New Reports on Violence Prevention Say Home Visits Can Reduce Child Abuse, But Finds Insufficient Scientific Evidence to Determine Whether Firearm Laws Impact Rates of Violence

The two newest sets of findings from the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) add new depth to what is known about strategies to prevent violence. Information released today in one set of findings indicates that home visitations by trained personnel play an effective role in the reduction of child maltreatment, including abuse and/or neglect. In the other findings, there is insufficient scientific evidence on whether firearms laws have impact on violence rates...
...

Firearms Laws

The Task Force review of the effects of various laws showed insufficient evidence to conclude whether firearms laws impact rates of violence.

Among the areas under task force review were: bans on specific firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearm laws.

A finding of “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness” means that, based on the current body of literature, the Task Force is unable to determine whether the intervention was effective or not. The task force agreed that additional scientific studies relating to these interventions might help to provide clearer answers.

The task force is a nonfederal panel of health-care and community-based prevention experts supported by the CDC. It directs systematic reviews of scientific research across the entire spectrum of public health issues and makes practice and research recommendations based on its findings.

The full report is available on the Web at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr. More information about the Community Guide (including links to a variety of resources) is available at http://www.thecommunityguide.org.

Full findings will be published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2004.

 

[Gunny]

The police will catch up with them eventually, at the moment they are killing each other over drugs and turf.In this country we have more faith in our police force than you seem to have in yours.

The police eventually catching a murderer, if they do, is no consolation to the dead.

 

[Bern80]

More like the ability to effectively kill someone rather than defend oneself, IMO, so I still see no real reason to carry one.

and what do you propose I use to defend myself? Why should I have to be at the mercy of my assailant?

If defense is what you are after wouldn't body armour not suffice?or do you wear that too?

It isn't what I'm really after. I'm after choice. Stop being assanine.

P.S. If you're going to actually respond to my post (which you didn't), then quote me. If not, don't bother

 

[Annie]

More like the ability to effectively kill someone rather than defend oneself, IMO, so I still see no real reason to carry one.

So what do you base the first part on? If it's untrue, then you change your mind?

If defense is what you are after wouldn't body armour not suffice?or do you wear that too?

 

[Emmett]

More like the ability to effectively kill someone rather than defend oneself, IMO, so I still see no real reason to carry one.

If defense is what you are after wouldn't body armour not suffice?or do you wear that too?

Ok Roomy, your points are somewhat well taken. While I am a staunch advocate of the right to carry and protect oneself, I am symothetic to those of you who are just so against violence that it clouds your thinking a bit when it comes to identifying the problem in this issue.

SCENARIO: You are out with your girl on a fine Saturday evening, you are law abiding citizen and have never hurt anyone in your life and certainly would not for any reason other than to protect yourself (IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY). Suddenly while opening the door for your date, you are accosted by a stranger (who knows what his intentions are), he appears crazy, you barely have time to asses the situation and he brandishes a long knife and orders you into the car and begins to get into the back seat. "Oh my God" you think to yourself as you walk around the car while he holds the knife to your lady's neck. You have NO CHOICE but to comply because this guy seems crazy and YOU are unarmed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is sitting on the passengers side rear seat, your lady is in the front. You are walking around the front of the car when you realize, "DAMMIT" if I just had a holster under my dinnerjacket of in a well hidden, easily accesable one here on the right side of my body I could access it while I am making this turn and draw it as I have trained myself to do.

Just between you and me, my family are not just all well trained with handgunds, they have them in the trunk of their cars in a well hidden location in case they are stuffed into the trunk of their car. Silly you say! Hmmmm! I don't think so!

Guns are very very dangerous, in the hands of dangerous people. They are harmless in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens. Criminals are dangerous people. Drug addicts, robbers and rapists will use guns and are not concerned about the issue of registration, ownership or your plan to take them from law abiding citizens, as a matter of fact, they hope it happens. It certainly will make their job alot easier.

Respectfully
Emmett

 

[Annie]

I don't have a gun, don't know how to shoot a gun. But I do understand the 2nd amendment and why. At first I was tempted to just type in 'Bosnia', then I ran across this which is about Lebanon. There are some really interesting pics, including what 'precision bombing' really means, but this jumped out to me for this forum. Scroll down about a 6th of the way, just after the guy standing in a crater in the street:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001361.html

“Did anyone here try to stop Hezbollah?” I said.

“How?” Alan said. “We have no weapons. Some people told Hezbollah to leave, but they pointed guns in our faces. Shut up, go back in your house, we were told.”​

At the southern edge of town is an open field with a direct view to the south toward Israel.

 

[roomy]

and what do you propose I use to defend myself? Why should I have to be at the mercy of my assailant?



It isn't what I'm really after. I'm after choice. Stop being assanine.

P.S. If you're going to actually respond to my post (which you didn't), then quote me. If not, don't bother

I feel sad that you live in constant fear of being murdered and your only defense is a gunfight in which (hopefully) you kill the other guy and escape unscathed.

 

[roomy]

So what do you base the first part on? If it's untrue, then you change your mind?

I base it primarily on my own opinion, which is what I base most things on.My opinion is always true until someone or something changes it or at least gives me enough pause for thought to question it.

You don't wave guns at people or throw them if you wish to use them effectively you kill whatever you are aiming at, you always shoot to kill, it's not like in the movies where you try to shoot someone in the arm or leg, in reality to have to try and kill them, dead.

I understand the arguments for the right to bear arms in your lawless land, we just don't find it necessary to do so in Great Britain, all I am saying in essence is maybe you could learn a little from us in this instance instead of thinking you are right all of the time?By 'you' and 'us' I mean America and Britain (before you take it literally)

 

[Emmett]

I don't have a gun, don't know how to shoot a gun. But I do understand the 2nd amendment and why. At first I was tempted to just type in 'Bosnia', then I ran across this which is about Lebanon. There are some really interesting pics, including what 'precision bombing' really means, but this jumped out of me for this forum. Scroll down about a 6th of the way, just after the guy standing in a crater in the street:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001361.html

Great article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ninja]

all I am saying in essence is maybe you could learn a little from us in this instance instead of thinking you are right all of the time?)

Uh, you guys banned guns and knives, but your violent crime rate is still rising.

What exactly is it that you propose we learn from you?

 

[Annie]

I base it primarily on my own opinion, which is what I base most things on.My opinion is always true until someone or something changes it or at least gives me enough pause for thought to question it.

You don't wave guns at people or throw them if you wish to use them effectively you kill whatever you are aiming at, you always shoot to kill, it's not like in the movies where you try to shoot someone in the arm or leg, in reality to have to try and kill them, dead.

I understand the arguments for the right to bear arms in your lawless land, we just don't find it necessary to do so in Great Britain, all I am saying in essence is maybe you could learn a little from us in this instance instead of thinking you are right all of the time?By 'you' and 'us' I mean America and Britain (before you take it literally)

I'm in a weird position here, I agree with you about shoot to kill, there would be no other reason to. Heck, even the police call using a gun-deadly force, they don't go for the arm, leg, or even head. They go for the area of vital organs-big target.

However, the argument has nothing to do with 'lawless land' and everything to do with possibility of oppression, which we learned at the hand of your government. While we perfected what we borrowed from your system, we kept in mind that 'power corrupts' and keep prepared for it.