Really! I'm glad you're here to tell me these things...
Define *plenty*. Show me where (per capita) the amount of gun related deaths in the UK is anywhere near that of the US. Well???
And if you DO have one, you are a criminal. (It's really quite an easy concept to follow.)
No. It is a dream. It is also a sophistically correct statement. Let me walk you through it.... If NO-ONE (meaning.. no living creature on the earth..) is armed... (I.e. have any guns) then no-one (Refer above) can shoot anyone. ( Based upon there being no guns to do so.)
It's actually quite simple. (But for as long as there are people like you it will never happen. And people will continue to die needlessly, senselessly and by the hands of cowards.)
Really? Regardless of the fact that I have been a pacifist since I learned of the concept of murder? How strange!!!
Aaah.. Here we see the main crux of your mis-informed vitriol. *We have been scapegoated* !! No. You've had your toys taken away. GOOD! These toys are used to kill people. (Yes, maybe in the wrong hands, but it is still the case. Perhaps a ban would not work in the US, but here, where the gun culture (quite frankly) does not even think of existing (to the same extent as the US) we have nipped a potential problem in the bud.
I've said it before , I'll say it again, I would rather millions of people lost their *toys* than see ONE more child murdered. (All it takes for a law abiding gun owner to become a criminal is ONE bullet) But then, a gun owner (handguns etc) in the UK is a criminal already.
And those schools are stupid. Clothes do not kill... But guns do!
Really? When was the last episode like Dunblane... remind me... (By which I mean... A *legal* gun owner, everything nice and legal, killed primary school children. I don't want to see that happen again. If ONE nice, legal, honest gun owner can do it, so can another.)
You, (obviously being a gun owner.. (or embittered EX owner) ) may think that. *I* see the gun ban as being an intrinsic step to help us prevent becoming as the US. Guns everywhere, drive by shootings a daily occurance, people *drawing down* due to being cut off in traffic, need I go on?
I wouldn't know. Why do you ask me?
Very true. The criminal Justice act, however, does NOT just apply to goths. It applies to everyone. (Remember, by the letter of the law, a gathering of more than (3?) people can constitute a breach of that Law.)
Did I hear right that Matt Stone, producer of South Park, used to attend the very school in question? (Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado)
Also did anyone else notice from the TV news coverage, that one of the associates of the gunmen, who was arrested by the police, was wearing a South Park t-shirt?
Oh my god! They killed 25 students! You bastards!
Look out! 25 students! They're coming right for us!
Let's all jump on the bandwaggon, shall we? Obviously this was nothing to do with shitty gun laws- after all it ain't the weapon that kills, it's the person! Ergo we must now ban teenygoth music and adult cartoon shows! Hmm, yeah right, I'd like to see 2 teenagers take out 25 students using baseball bats. How long will it be before Yanks stop looking for excuses and start banning guns?
Biggest fuckwit had to be the local government guy interviewed on the BBC who suggested the shootings were due to declining numbers at the local church. After all, Christians don't preach hate speech, do they? Well, not unless you're a non-Christian, but it's okay to hate non-Christians 'cos they're all going to BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY anyway aren't they?
As an american, I really don't think that would help. (I'm also a crack shot with a pistol, and am not a sociopath.) There is something wrong, deeply and inherently wrong with modern American culture, and it goes beyond the presence or absence of guns, beyond violence in movies and on television, beyond disgruntled employees. These are all sympyoms of some larger, underlying problem that no one has yet identified. There is something wrong with america, with americans, some dehuminizing cancer that has infected a lot of peple here. No one knows what it is, but I don't think that removing the guns, or for that matter the music ( as some in this country will no doubt suggest) will help in the least.
It the parent's fault for not stopping them after (or even before) they started there little "Black Trench Coat Mafia" club. The parents of the shooters ought to be made to apologize publically, in person, and indivually to each of the parents of the stundents who were shot. They also, IMHO, ought to serve jail time as well as the boys who did the shooting.
Presumably the parents of most of the folks on this ng should've stopped us when we started dressing weird, growing our hair, listening to the devils music or whatever?
The boys who carried out the shooting took their own lives you moron!
As for the parents, how about feeling sympathy for thethem. They have not only lost their sons but are also likely facing the wrath of the local community?
No, that's just the same reaction to the outward apperance thing that the media is foisting upon us. Their parents should have been in touch with their kids at least well enough to realize that they were having problems with other kids at school, and that their little "club" was more than just another peer group.
Well excuse me for not living in front of my Television. I heard about it on the radio before the final reports were in.
As well they should. Check out the legal definition of "minor". A paraent is responsible for everything that their kid says and does. So the is the kid, but the parents legally bear the burden of responsibility.
sorry, but you ARE talking a bit of bollocks. the parents should have kept the little twats away from fire-arms. everyone has a right to an opinion, i don't care what their age is, or what that opinion is. anything that contradicts that right is inhumane. however, what i do have a problem with is when those people force thier opinions on others- through words, fists, or guns. that's when they should be stopped- but not brainwashed/de-brainwashed.
indeed.
legal, legal, legal.
so what? in the US, the kid's'd be killed anyway, LEGALLY. the law's bolloxed.
Orfeo decided to put finger to keyboard on the Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:18:50 +0100. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
That's probably why they're so pissed. Because they killed themselves, their judicial/penal system won't get to fry their asses...
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
JB "You know, there are many people in the country today who, through no fault of their own, are sane... It is up to people like you and me who are out of our tiny little minds to try and help these people overcome their sanity.'"- Rev. Arthur Belling
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, Mark Greene wrote:
What a load of shit. The government has taken away the rights of the parents to raise their children. How are we suppose to raise children to learn there are consequences when the government threatens to put us in jail if we discipline our children when they are bad?!
Jeez. You seriously believe that if children was beaten just a little more,
then they would be nice and never do anything wrong?
I may sound like a dreamer to you, but if the parents just spent more time
with their children, they would eventually learn the values in the adult
world...... Then again, *that* could be the real problem, now couldn't it?
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, Vincent wrote:
Do you make it a habit to twist peoples words?
I never said 'beat' the child. I said discipline.
You not only sound like a dreamer, but you are. The world is not a perfect place. The government has taken the authority away from parents yet the parents are being blamed for everything. A person can not be held responsible for something they have no authority over. If you won't let me take my dog to discipline school and/or tie him up in my yard, you can't blame me when he goes over the fence and digs up your garden. (strange analogy, but hey, it just popped out.)
Now I'm not saying that some parents don't f**k kids up royally. I know there are some really crappy parents out there. But to just jump and say it's all the parents fault is way out of line.
No, more like a sport. But I apologize if I offended someone.
Sure, I agree.
My point is that if parents just say to their kids that everything "bad" is
wrong and never tell their kids why or lets them face the consequences(instad of
"diciplining" them), then they'll be like dogs with masters who punishes them for
something the one day, and rewards them for the same thing the other day(If you
prefer it in doogie style). IMHO, that is.
You know, as the old cliche goes, perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle......
But guess what guys...
WE are gonna be blamed for this. I.e. The Net, Quake, Doom, *Forbbiden* Information, Violent TV shows, Movies.....
Nothing at ALL to do with the fact that it's easier to find a gun in the US than it is to ... to find something easy to find...
If the US want to do anything to in any way *honour* the memory of those poor buggers in Colorado then thewy should begin to push for a blanket ban on handguns immediately.
How many examples do you *need* guys? ONCE is too often...
And the kneejerk reaction is to find blame for anything. Their upbringing, their parents, the internet, rock music, movies. Yes, perhaps *society* has not helped these idiots, the reasoning we are hearing over here in the UK was that because these people were not a part of the *Sports Elite* they were teased.
People are *always* teased. People will *always* set up eliteist groups. But if there were no guns then those teased couldn't then go out and put lumps of lead through the heads of other human beings. And THAT is the whole point.
It will take a LOT longer to *fix* society than it would to get rid of guns. So why not at least take away the options for *revenge* until we can *fix* society in the first place??
I haven't put this as succinctly as I wanted. but I'm sure you get the gist. The US itself is beginning to show intolerance towards this kind of a thing. Before the reaction would simply be *America love it or leave it pinko fag!*, and that extreme gave way until it was only groups like the NRA and other militia that propounded that *Guns don't kill people.. people kill people...* which is the biggest load of crap ever spouted...
The US has a chance to DO something to ensure it's own future does not have more of these incidents.
Ban Guns. It's easy...
(and BTW... *When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns* is just as ridiculous a platitude. None of the mass shooters *were* outlaws. until they blew away unarmed people.)
I believe that we must agree to disagree on this one, Covenant. We cannot ban guns, but I would like to see every gun sold to have a GUN LOCK on it, and that anyone buying a gun that hasn't been in the armed services has to take a week long class on marksmanship and safety. We cannot ban the guns, but we can educate people on how to use them... And they used bombs too. Do you have ANY idea how easy it is to make a pipe bomb??? I could make one today if I wanted to! Any kid can buy or MAKE the materials required. Even saltpeter can be made EASILY, and with some table sugar... Or a little more work, and you have blackpower! How about a flame thrower? A supersoaker water rifle with some kerosene and a candle or small torch works, or a garden tank sprayer... How about zip guns? You can make a shotgun that's powered by CHERRY BOMBS, for gods sake! Or knives? I shudder to think about it, but do you have any idea what a mess a knife makes of the human body? Would it have been better if they had been armed with machetes? Insane people will find a way, after all, their insane, not stupid. Even with baseball bats kids would have died. MAN WILL FIND A WAY. If we cannot stop the arms, we must stop the people that use them. I don't mean to flame, but banning guns would not solve anything. Pot is illegal, its too bad you can't get a hold of it almost anywhere... ---LordGroghe
LordGroghe wrote in message news:37201505$0$[email]...
Can't understand why but....
I though guns had safty catches.
to
Who was that bloke that stole a tank and drove it down the highway squashing cars didn't they have to shoot him in the end. What makes you think that a trained person won't go 'loopy'
You still don't say why, difficlut to carry out I agree.
So why didn't they make a bomb and not use guns... Answer guns were easier to get. If guns were'nt available then they may have made a bomd but may have blown themselves up doing it.
about
Yep.. but it takes more thought and planing. And if it was that easier why did they use guns?.
YES, 3-4 people can jump on a person and tackle them with a machete they'd have very little chance if he had a sub-machine gun.
So would it be OK to open up a shop selling home ready nuclear war heads?.
How can you do this you don't always no who will use them until it's too late. You can't lock someone up in case they use a gun, but you can lock a gun up in case it gets used.
Same old story, if guns hadn't been invented would people still die from gun shots.....
But pot doesn't kill. How many people have been killed by pot in the last 500 years.... I bet less than have been killed by guns while I type this.
They did make bombs. 30 such bombs were found in and around the school.
I think the materials for a pipe bomb are easier to get actually, since you can just walk into a hardware store and purchase the parts. In buying a gun there might be a few days of having to wait, depending on where you are. Buying hardware supplies is also a lot less suspicious.
If you put a lock on the trigger of a gun, that defeats its purpose. If someone breaks into your house, you might not have time to unlock it in teh panic. That's even more true of if a mugger approaches you.
Just because the way to make bombs can't be banned, doesn't mean that guns can't. Non Sequiteur.
Saltpeter and sugar (icing is better, it's finer btw) with give you smoke bombs, not blackpower. but yes, it can be made easily.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. Do not try that at home. If you use a supersoaker, the flame will travel up the nozzle and into the holding tank, where it will likely explode. Besides, its too narrow a stream of gasoline to do any real damage.
Umm, probably not. Remember, these were the geek kids. They hated Jocks. Jocks are atheletes, and usually pretty big. Geeks are not. Two geeks with baseball bats CANNOT take down 41 (total killed or injured) people, mostly athelete. Impossible.
Hey! That's your prerogative! (At least you are being civil about it ; ) )
This is what sticks in my throat... WHY can you *not* ban guns? *we* did ... why can't you guys amend the (badly outdated) constitution?
But then all that may lead to is better equiped and prepared lunatics!
This is actually the whole point of this incident. These two morons *planned* this meticulously. Yes there were pipe bombs.
But as soon as the first one went off the school could have evacuated. The reason more of them died was because the two f*****s sprayed literally *hundreds* of rounds about. Like I said before (maybe not here) if some one has a knife, or a club, or a bat, or even a rock. You can run from it. You can't outrun a bullet.
See above.
But it will! It will take a *massive* mandate from the public in the US, but you are suipposed to have a government run *by* the people *for* the people. As long as guns are as prolific, then you will have these incidents. It is a sad fact, but a very valid one.
Just *now* it is illegal. (But did you know that in the 50's the major tobacco companies had packaging and advertisements ready for the legalisation of it? I believe it will happen. Initially for arthritis sufferers etc.. then it will be decriminalised..then legalised.)
Oh.. and again, this is a UK/US biase... Ever been to Holland?? ; ' )
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
The answer to all of your points is, that you haven't even *tried*. Do you mean to say that a majority of the US thinks guns are good hings? What makes you say that? How do *you* know what the majority thinks?
I'm not flaming you here. I am serious... Without any kind of forum there can be no consensus. I'm having this kind of conversation all over the net right now, and on one of my NG's (which has a 90% US readership), only 2 people are saying guns should *not* be banned... What does *that* tell you?
You're right, I haven't personally tried. But, I shall assuming (even though I hate assumptions) that you are talking about the U.S. here. Some things have been tried, more than you probably know, more than I probably know because I don't pay attention to the news every day. The point is that there is a *huge* lobby against banning guns or doing things to change the gun policy in a country. Minorities lose out when it comes to such issues, that's the truth.
Call it a defeatist attitude. Perhaps it is. But that's because it's so frustrating because some things just *cannot* be done.
I don't know the majority of the U.S. - in fact all I've been trying to do in this thread is shatter that notion people have concerning guns in this country, when they say that everyone has one, or everyone wants one, which is simply *not* true.
I don't know what they think. Obviously someone misinterpreted what I said. I didn't intend for anything like that to come across.
I would, though, like to know *how* the British people know what the majority of people here in the U.S. think.
I see your point. But it what it reminds me is that the people who are on Usenet represent a *very* small portion of the actualy population of this country.
Yes, but seeing as this is the internet, wouldn't that part of society likely me the more educated, richer ones? The ones who are probably less enamoured with weapons?
Medusa wrote in message news:U5sU2.3976$[email]...
<Snip About banning guns>
things?
do
which
I don;t think we are saying that, it's that everyone has a right to own one. Now most law abbidding people of any country don't find a need to have a gun unless :- A/ It's for self protection B/ To unlawfully kill another C/ Sport,
Now as for A you'd only need such an item if you believed you were going to be be 'attacked or threatened', which is unlikely in a country that bans guns.
B/ Well criminals what more can I say.
C/ (Blood sport that is) For sad people that have no other life.
one
guns
on
but 90% or even a 0.000001% is still larger than 10% of 0.000001%
But pratically I guess it doesn't matter whether the American citizens want them or not, there's so much money tied up in gun sales (internal) that I guess a fair proportion of polititions have too many fingers stuck in to too many unscruplous arms deals to get out of alive.
Are firearms actually effective as pest control? I'm sure there are alternatives that are cheaper, cause less damage to the environment and work much better. Trying to hit a small, fast moving rodent 20 yards away is difficult.. worse for birds.. I expect the noise of the shot scares them away pretty good, but it's easy to replicate a big bang.. without having to put a fistfull of lead into the local food chain. I suppose if your having problems with bears and.. what Cougers?.. you can consider yourself justified in owning a firearm. Wolves and so forth don't really trouble livestock unless they're weak and starving.. I can see certain circumstances where domestic dog stray could be a problem.. but again.. I suspect the use of a gun is more of a psychological advantage. Most threats to livestock happen at night.. when it's difficult to hit stuff... there is also the chance that you'll hit your own livestock taking pot shots at the aggressor... or even just scare them to death. I suspect a pack of large, well trained dogs will be a much more effective deterrant.
If you live in such a frontier society where you have to kill to eat, then yes.. use a firearm. If on the other hand you're not going to starve or go short if you don't shoot things.. then its sport.
I used to fish.. sometimes I took the fish home to eat.. I still considered it a sport.
Personally, I don't mind target shooting.. particularly that that involves specialist single-shot guns that aren;t much use for mowing down people. Those taking an uzi onto the range and claiming it is for 'sport' however, are insane..!
not to pick nits, (ok, i'm picking nits) but i happen to know of a large religious commune located on the north side of chicago (in uptown). many of the families that live there take vacations on the UP or in Wisconsin or even rural IL. why? to hunt. why? to eat the deer. now, these people are not going to starve w/o this meat. _however_ the deer meat they get is astronomically better than any meat they can afford to buy on the limited budget of the commune. getting a deer or two is the difference between a pleasant winter and a lean, bland winter for them. is that still sport? by your definition above, it would be. i think they'd disagree.
~ clockwork.jhimm [trying to be civil, just for kicks]
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:27:00 +0100, Blackbird wrote:
Depends on the pest.
So wait for it to sit still 8)
No argument there - I didn't say it's suitable for all pests.
Also wild boar and their hybrids (such as are causing much trouble in Kent and East Sussex currently)
Nope - the few that are left generally know better. The same is not true for the feral dogs and dog/wolf hybrids which menace livestock in a fair bit of central europe.
It's much easier to stop a dog (or particularly a pack of dogs) with a gun than, say, a stick and harsh language.
But rather more expensive to maintain.
What if you hunt because you feel it is hypocritical of people to eat what they are not prepared to kill? Anyone who eats meat is responsible for the deaths of animals, and there are people who choose not to try to hide from this fact by paying someone else to turn recogniseable animals into nicely presented meat.
Did you fish for food and just happen to enjoy it, or did you fish for fun and regard the food as a handy spin-off?
I regard the latter as sport, but not the former.
I wouldn't call it sport either. I can certainly see that it would be recreational though, in the same way as I enjoy wreaking devastation upon innocent lumps of concrete and wood with picks and chainsaws once in a while (but only when there's a reason for reducing them).
Depends on the pest. I once buried a dog which tangled with a rabid badger. A round in its lair seemed the most effective solution. As a child I fed my cats while hunting with a .22
Nothing but you hardly need an automatic or a large gun, why not stick to an air rifle, I think there's a form of ban on them here. I wouldn't object to inanimate target shooting provided the 'gun' was secured in a sutable container with the aim (pun) that it couldn't be easily used for people/animal shooting.
I've alsways wondered what it'd be like to go clay pigeon shooting.
D/ well my greatest pests are the students I lok after in my lab so I'm all for it ;-) But seriously it depends what you call pests, In the UK it's wasp, flies, mice, sometimes rats. I'd feel pretty silly chancing a fly with an ak47 or whatever. If they are serious pests then why not leave it to a profectional body to take care of it.? Pest-busters anyone .
E/ No don't like hunting although I do have discussions on hunting when it's a cultural thing although I personally I still don't like it. A true hunt is a bit different.....This I wouldn't mind. If you wish to hunt a lion go in the field with it stark naked One-to-One No gun no weapon other than what 'god' gave you.
I really don;t like some things I've seen where people can go up to a teathered animal and shoot it just so they can have a trophy on their wall.
In article , Covenant wrote: :The answer to all of your points is, that you haven't even *tried*. :Do you mean to say that a majority of the US thinks guns are good hings? :What makes you say that? :How do *you* know what the majority thinks?
How about just about every time it comes up for a general vote, the voters tend to vote FOR LESS GUN CONTROL.
:I'm not flaming you here. I am serious... :Without any kind of forum there can be no consensus. :I'm having this kind of conversation all over the net right now, and on one :of my NG's (which has a 90% US readership), only 2 people are saying guns :should *not* be banned... What does *that* tell you?
That you tend to read newsgroups were people are opposed to firearm ownership.
I have NEVER heard of a *general vote* about gun control in the us. If you can post me a url to check this out I'd gladly check it out.
one
No. It's called ordinary people. NOT gun-nuts, not NRA members, not anyone with a vested interest in the gun lobby. (Which it seems to me you *are*.) You are getting VERY hostile here. with NO justification for doing so.
Oh, of course. Anyone who disagrees with Joe must be someone with a vested interest in the gun lobby(!?!?). Funny how that fringe group of 'radical extremists' in the NRA has a larger population than Northern Ireland.
Better watch out, Petro, he might write your ISP that your are a dangerous gun nut who is threatening to kill him.
Here's another bit of statistics from the NY Times which dipshit will continue to ignore.
"Crime in Merry England
British crime rates for most serious crimes are higher than in the US. The US assault rate was 8.8/1,000 in 1995, but the English-Welsh rate was 20.1/1,000. The robbery rate is 1.4 times higher in Britain than in the US and the burglary rate is nearly double in Britain. Rates for car theft are also higher in England and Wales. Murder and rape rates are higher in the US, but the gap is narrowing.
"Britain may have tougher gun laws, the study said, but the US had longer prison sentences."
"Common sense says America is the most crime-ridden country on earth, while Britain is an oasis of peace and tranquillity," the London Sunday Times said in an editorial. "Common sense is wrong. We urgently need to re-examine our cozy assumptions about law and order."
Reuters, as reported in the NY Times December 12, 1998. "
IX Corp. wrote in message news:7g6hnj$fug$[email]...
I've emailed the times to find out more, I'm waiting.....
sense
Let's see you're quoting what the "the London Sunday Times" that the NY times quoted... said the London quoted.. I'd like to see the originals first.
I really can'rt see the times using the word Merry England, but maybe they did. As I said I've still seen no real proof either way, a short piece of quoted test is interesting..... but...
The Britsh people may have some good ideas about thing, and coming from someone from Britian, it may sound like a good and easy idea to "just ban guns". But once something is deep rooted in society, it is not even feasible to take it awya....Anyone who says "Lets just ban guns in America" is just waisting time to even think of making the statement... Face it, it is impossible to do, it will never happen... Now, lets move beyond that idea and try to come up with something else
I dunno, somewhere in here there's a beautiful irony in the fact that the British are the *reason* that the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution in the first place. Granted it was the British of the 1700s, but I find it humorous in an odd sort of way. :)
Medusa wrote in message news:pEaU2.1251$[email]...
I bet if it were in their own personal interests it would be...
Isn't it like men(the majority maco-types) wearing comdoms....... Why should they it's only the women that were at risk of getting pregnant, then there were the nasty STDs mostly treatable so....... But it wasn't until HIV that men volenteered to wear them once they knew they were at seroius risk.
So if 'we' (as in Americans) know this why can't they do something about it?
So if they know that guns kill and more guns meansd more kilings....etc..
: :Hey! That's your prerogative! (At least you are being civil about it ;
:
: :This is what sticks in my throat... WHY can you *not* ban guns? :*we* did ... why can't you guys amend the (badly outdated) constitution?
Because there are actually a majority of people in this country who believe that owning a firearm IS AND SHOULD BE their right.
As to "Outdated", other than the fact that Americans are guareenteed the right to defend themselves, what do you feel is outdated about it?
The right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? What?
:
Stop and think a second, think about why this is dumb and wouldn't work.
They can't even enforce drivers education on people, and cars are far more dangerous than guns. Hell, we can't even make sure people know how to read and write.
:But then all that may lead to is better equiped and prepared lunatics!
It's better that they hit their target.
: :But as soon as the first one went off the school could have evacuated. The :reason more of them died was because the two f*****s sprayed literally :*hundreds* of rounds about. Like I said before (maybe not here) if some one :has a knife, or a club, or a bat, or even a rock. You can run from it. You :can't outrun a bullet.
Just about _anyone_ no matter how feeble can shoot back, a firearm makes a wheel chairbound grandmother on the south side of Chicago more than the equal of 2 14 year old thugs (she shot and killed one of them). If all she'd had was a knife or a rock, she'd be dead right now.
And yes, you _can_ run from a bullet. It is extremely difficult to hit a moving target with a pistol or rifle (from a standing/offhand position).
Yes, I do.
: :But it will!
Sure, it will leave the physically weak completely at the mercy of the stronger predators, and at the complete mercy of the government.
:It will take a *massive* mandate from the public in the US, but you are :suipposed to have a government run *by* the people *for* the people. :As long as guns are as prolific, then you will have these incidents. :It is a sad fact, but a very valid one.
I seem to remember a little incident in Scotland a while back where a "nutter" killed a bunch of kids despite fairly tyrannical firearms regulations.
Oh, and how has the IRA managed to get their guns?
:
: :Just *now* it is illegal.
Has been since the early 1900's. So has Cocaine, PCP, LSD, and many other things. They still exist. : :Oh.. and again, this is a UK/US biase... Ever been to Holland?? ; ' )
petro wrote in message news:250419991608366889%[email]...
And there are 15 dead kids in Colorado who would disagree with you if they could.
The constitution was designed to be changed and amended with the times. It mentions the right of a well-regulated militia to bear arms, not every sicko who wants one. That's outdated enough for me. What about the parts relating to slavery which are still in there? Are they not outdated?
See above.
Er, ever heard of traffic school? You have to take a test before you can legally drive. Anyway, you seem to be confused as cars are a means of transport not a weapon. I would love to see you take a drive down the shops on your 9mm or walk though a school blowing people away with your Honda Civic.
It's even better they don't have a target to hit.
He had legally owned guns although he should never have been allowed to own them. At least the people in the UK learned from their mistakes and stopped it happening again by banning guns.
And how do you know this is a majority viewpoint? Most of the people I have discussed this with (In the US) do NOT agree with you.
No. What is outdated is the fact that you believe you could *overthrow* the government by force of arms.
Watch Wag the Dog. Yes. "It's a movie" But so was Nixon and that was all true was it not? If you don't think the US government already HAS autonomy then I feel you are deluding yourself.
Your right. They should just ban the guns.
to
guns,
So doesn't that show that your priorities are wrong? If (according to you) the *majority* keep the guns legal, then can't that same majority *ensure* that your children are educated? Where is the difference in *blame*? How can that be the governments fault if you guys *tell* the government what to do?
Yeah. Those f*****s in colorado sure didn't miss did they!
one
Oh get real! Do I really need to tell you that if someone is laying down fire from an automatic weapon they only need to spray fire around where you are? And if someone is only feet away from you you are not gonna get very far in any case!
but
Hre's this *complete mercy of the government* thing again!! Are you really *So* paranoid about your own government? If so... get rid of it! You keep telling me that is what the constitution is for !
And you remember incorrectly ! That incident is what STARTED our gun laws. Gun laws which were NOT tyrannical. Gun laws which the populace of the UK accepted whole heartedly (Except for... guess who... GUN owners!!)
Mostly from the US !
(My point I think!)
The point being that in Holland (at least) Pot is NOT illegal.
(Doncha just hate it when your sarcasm is blown away by solid fact?)
Why are you getting so hostile about this? Don't you see that this kind of reaction is what *causes* 'my' (and others) reactions? (Although, that said, others would just *flame on*, but that's pointless) Mainly because if you get so obviously angry in a supposedly civil debate, what would you be like in a real life confrontation? And what if you were armed?
I'm NOT suggesting you would shoot someone. But you see my point?
Covenant wrote in message news:7g32uf$b5l$[email]...
...
is
Interesting isn't it that JFK was assasinated by the govenment....
Is it realistic for some to believe that giving them the right to buy a gun means that if the governent decides to freak out, the same government will not be able to kill it's people before being brought down to it's knees by a few thousand armed citizens.
It's this thing that owning a gun gives a person (I should say *some* people) in to believeing they have god like properties, that they could bring down their own governent.
I know we in the UK don't trust our governments much but were not that synical.
petro wrote in message news:250419991608366889%[email]...
So people want the right to kill others.
Is it really about defending yourselves?, or is it the person with the bigger waepon is the one with the rights?
to
guns, ooo a whole week,
Not from where I'm sitting. In an office on the 2nd florr no car is going to run me over but with over 60 students on this floor anone I'd hate to think how many could blast me away with a gun if I told them to stop smoking in the lab.
And if cars are that dangerous how comes there not used much as weapons in war?
Despite moralising films the goodie isn't the best and fastest shot.
one
But isn't that illegal?
The
one
You
But if the 14s hadn't been able to get a gun for their protection from this old lady in a wheelchair that was attacking them....
Yer sure and if these 2 14-y-o had a nuclear warhead at their disposal... It's only the next form of protection up from a gun. They could have blasted her wheelchair half way across the country before she had her hand on the trigger. And if there were 8 14s as there were when a friend of mine was attacked recently, but this was in London and the only thing thrown were punches and bnot a volly of bullets.
but
It has in most countries... most copuntries have a lower crime rate than the USA.
Yawn. You mean it gives you the right to kill your president.. how fortunate. Go for it, give the world a break.
from America wasn't it.
No one has *ever* died from smoking pot... and even if they did it does not have the abiliy to kill at 100 feet, and it will only kill the user, pot can't be aimed at someone in order to kill them.
If guns only killed the people that used them then fine give them away with comdoms it'll reduce the population..
I have played VirtuaCop2 in the arcades. And House of the Dead. And Crypt Killer. And not one of them has any resemblance to shooting an honest-to-god rifle/handgun/whatever in reality in the situation which I enjoy shooting a real gun.
A big thing in those games is "kill or be killed" and a heavier emphasis is placed on speed rather than accuracy. If loading my Rossi '92 were as easy as pointing it off-range (which, incidentally, I wouldn't do because you don't aim a gun anywhere but downrange...), then maybe there'd be some basis for comparison. Of course, then you'd have to emulate the kick of a .44-40 round on the VirtuaCop mockup, and the percussive thump that requires hearing protection, and the required eye protection in order to play.
And boy, wouldn't my 1880's Western garb look out of place at the arcade?? But since you seem to have missed my posts on Cowboy Action Shooting, I doubt if that entered into the equation at all...
So how attached are these people to their guns, for this to be a punishment? Are they somehow addicted? Are they scared to be without them? Surely there is no reason in an urban environment to have a gun. If a burglar breaks in to your house, there are non-lethal ways of dealing even with an armed intruder that are just as effective.
When I was living in France, the local bar owner showed me what he had stashed in case of robbery - a plastic bullet gun, which fired two wide bore low velocity rounds with enough force to knock a guy clean off his feet, and a CS spray. Anyone sticking his place up would be probably quite badly injured, but at least had a good chance of survival.
When was the last time you went deer-hunting through the streets of LA? ;-)
See my other post in this thread - I do not own my guns for home defense. I don't think I could ever use my gun to harm another living being (be it animal or human), so I don't even consider my guns to be defense weapons.
Not everyone who owns guns has dreams of being Dirty Harry. My only targets are paper bullseyes and metal plates.
Cause much of the reason for shooting paper targets is to get your gun sited in for hunting, not killing humans. If you live in a very rural area, you depend on hunting and farming for food, or at least where I am from we do.
Because it's cowboy action shooting, as I believe I stated in an earlier post. I also provided a link to the SASS website for those who wanted to learn more about the sport (like why, for example, we don't use pellet or BB guns).
But here it is again since you seem to have missed it the first time:
While there's a market you won't stop people making them....... Especaily in other contries, we have less of a problem here because we don't have the boarder problems the USA has as regards 'gun traficing. (But I guess we have the channel tunnel now)
1) The range I frequent doesn't have storage facilities 2) The range that has storage facilities has high range fees that I'm not willing to pay, as I don't have that much extra money to spend on storage.
Money is also one of the reasons I don't have ammo in the house. 100 rounds for my rifle is between $15 and $26 US (providing you can even find them - they're cast-lead, non-jacketed bullets. Cowboy loads).
That's absolute bullshit. Even a 44 Magnum does not transfer enough energy to a standing human to knock one down. If they go down it's because of shock or major nerve trauma. Even a 1 oz. deer slug in a 12 gauge shotgun will NOT knock you down. You've seen way too many Hollywood movies. Besides, a goblin flat on his back with a gun in his hand will kill you just as dead as one that is still standing.
They used shotguns and pipe bombs, as well. Ban shotguns, too? Why not. Sounds good. But what about the pipe bombs? Ban pipe, gasoline, styrofoam, thermometers (source of Mercury [Hg]), coal, salt-peter, phosphorous, nitrates, kerosine....the list goes on and on. When all we have left to do violence with are our hands, feet, and teeth, will you then ban those?
No, they'd just have to blow them up, run them over, set them on fire, poison them, stab them....you don't get it. Violent people with no concern for human life--including thier own--will FIND A WAY.
The US has increased gun control every year for the last six. These "incidents" started four years ago. Coincidence? Probably...
Really? Guarenteed? Then, there is NO VIOLENCE in ANY country which has banned guns?
I don't intend this as a flame; just a logical counter-argument. What you suggest is illogical in this, and several other, incidents in recent US history. Banning guns is not an answer; it's a reaction. Have no fear, though. Undoubtedly several of our fearless leaders are working right now trying to figure out a way to make what you suggest a reality. Will you recant when it proves futile; or makes the situation worse?
GD
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Rev. Martin Neimoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo in 1937
[email] decided to put finger to keyboard on the Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:20:08 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
No logical reason for semi-auto pump-action shotguns. But pipe-bombs require a bit more effort to manufacture than buying a firearm, or pinching it out of daddy's firearms supply - consequently explosives are rarely used in violent incidents.
Possibly, but it's far harder to achieve a high body count without body-arms. And having spent a lot of time on the housing-schemes up here in Scotland, the only thing that keeps the murder rate down is the absence of firearms - especially significant given that the incidence of violent crime is reckoned to be on a par with that in the US.
So, you are suggesting that you do absolutely nothing. And your response is the most facile i have ever come across. Has it never occurred to you that virtually every other country has reasonably tight gun control laws and also has a significantly lower murder rate.
And my point earlier about the incidence of violent crime here in the UK demonstrates that this is not due to other 'cultural' reasons.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
What the hell is a "semi-automatic pump action shotgun"? Talk about oxymorons. Please get your nomenclature straight before talking about firearms. If it's semi-automatic it is NOT pump action. If it is pump-action how can it possibly be semiauto. I bet you think that AK-47's are "high-powered", too, don't you?
[email] (Bob Norton) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 23 Apr 1999 17:04:47 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Ummm. no.Talk about satire and irony. Two concepts you have demonstrably failed to grasp.
I actually think that they're an assault rifle seeing as that's how the Russian's market them. There particular selling point being their durability, and complete lack of IQ requirement in order to use them.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic." __
[email] decided to put finger to keyboard on the 23 Apr 1999 15:13:19 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Try 270 for flight 103. Although the US did a good job with a cruise missile on an iraqi (or iranian) civilian airliner ;-)
And why are explosives illegal outside of the civil engineering industry? Because they serve no other reasonable function in a society - just like guns really.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic." __
I didn't know the exact number, thus the "200+"...
Explosives that are pre-manufactured may be regulated outside of the civil engineering industry, but the bits and pieces it takes to make an explosive device are readily available for those who have the desire and knowledge.
The body count was just a rebuttal to the statement of "it's far harder to achieve a high body count without body-arms." - demonstrating that in fact it's far *easier* to achieve a high body count without body-arms, when explosives are used instead of handguns.
[email] decided to put finger to keyboard on the 23 Apr 1999 19:55:49 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
but it's not. Usually explosives do not claim fatalities when used in criminal activity such as this.
Hell, we're just after a nail-bombing in Brixton, London and the death toll was a big fat zero. this is in a busy high street that is chock full of people.
And i seem to recall that the only reason the bomb that brought down Flight 103 did so, was sheer bad luck. If it had of been anywhere else in the cargo bay it would not have had enough force to cause the aircraft to fail structurally - and this is a bomb made by professional terrorists.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic." __
But the ease with which you can access guns in the US makes it just so much easier to sit back and blow people away from a distance. It's a cowards way out, he same as blowing their own heads off once they had *finished*
There are MANY more instances of mass shottings than there are of *any* of the examples you give above. How do you explain that?
guns.
*fix*
Oh come on. There have been people *going Postal* in the US for a *lot* longer trhan 4 years!
have
Where did I say that??
It is a logical progression. If there are no guns available then morons cannot shoot people with them. it really is that simple. If someone comes at you with knife or a brick or a rock or a bat you can run away. Can you outrun a bullet?
as
they
WHY? Why is it illogical. You state that categorically and then do not show why!
Like I said. If guns are not avaiulable how can people be shot with them? One man with a knife will soon be stopped if he is trying to take out a bunch of people. One man with a gun can sit for as long as he has ammunition.
Thanks for keeping this civil. I know things like these can make tempers run high. I feel a lot of it is to do with the fact that it may appear as if *we* outside the US are attacking you.
Be assured *I* am not (although maybe others may be). I simply cannot comprehend the Gun State you guys have. It is abhorrent to me.
Personally, I'm glad they killed themselves. Save the taxpayers the emotional and financial hardship of trial and incarceration. I just wish they'd killed themselves about 16 years earlier.
argument get blown out of the water. The media doesn't cover random stabbings and all the non-gun-related violence that runs rampant in Americal THe guns get the focus because the gun lobby and anti-gun lobby are two very visible entities, and it's bound to make news. I mean, it's not like we have an anti-steak-knife lobby in the US - though considering the stabbing that occurred at my local high school yesterday - done by a girl who brought a steak knife to school because she felt she needed it for her protection, maybe we should have one.
It's not that guns are the main weapon of choice. It's that guns are the spotlighted weapon of choice, and I think any ER staff in any urban hospital in the US would agree.
Two words: black market. And if you think that those who want to get guns aren't above going to the Black Market to get them, then you have another think coming. Cocaine, heroin and other drugs have been outlawed in the US for years. Hasn't stopped the supply. Certain types of guns are banned in the US. But they're still on the streets.
I was talking about the fact that there are not MASS knifings, or bat beatings. As I said. The gun kills from a distance. the others do not. One on one, even against a knife or a bat. If you don't wanna get hit, you run. Try and outrun a bullet.
Did anyone die? How many did she stab? How did they stop her? and more importantly....... What would've happened if she'd had a gun??
See my point??
has
I dunno why you are getting so hostile here. I have already said that criminals will usually find a way to get a gun. But that's the why your police are armed. The gun is NOT so readily come by in the UK. And those who DO use the black market will pay a HELL of a lot of money for a weapon, leaving the casual *moron* unable to *go postal*.
And the longer guns are legal, the more and more of them there will be. You seriously think more guns are a good thing? If so then this isn't a debate you wanna take part in, *morally* at least it is wrong.
So do you have any idea on the type of guns that are on the streets ....... Would you say there's more black market guns than legaly help guns.?
Do you think that if all guns were legally they'd be less killings?.
I can buy a hand gun in the UK for 200 quid ($350 or so I've been told, black market) Now if these guns were availble say in the local McDonalds at 10 quid each do you think the UK would have more or less deaths by guns?.
You think? Will it be easy to get all those criminals, who obtained their guns illegally, to turn them in? By the way, those kids were already breaking the law even before the shooting started by getting ahold of those guns and bringing them to school. We currently have a drug problem in America. Why don't we just ban certain drugs, then they'll go away and kids won't have access to them. Oh wait, that won't work, they're already illegal and kids can still get them.
Then why didn't the U.K. put a ban on handguns *before* what happened in Dunblane, Scotland? Why wait until after that massacre? Perhaps that could have been prevented, if the U.K. hadn't waited to ban handguns.
Erm, no, it's not easy. Saying it is easy shows a lack of understanding and/or education about the U.S. and how things work here.
Easy you say??? Not as easy a you may think because in order to enforce such a ban you would have to amend the Constitution to the United States and that takes a long time. In the case of the most recent amendment to be added, that was started about 200 years ago. Some amendments take longer than others.
[email] (Herbie1968) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 22 Apr 1999 19:11:02 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Wrong. Here's the second amendment:
It guarantees the right to "a well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Various former Supreme Court judges have stated this to mean that the states have the right to implement a militia outwith the mandate of the federal government, and that citizens shall have the right to bear arms as members of this militia.
Rather different to what the NRA say...
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
Bullshit. Name one of these "Supreme Court Justices". There have only been 5 2nd amendment cases heard by the supreme court, ever. None of them were concerned with this aspect. Several lower court judges have made findings (not rulings) similar to what you quote here but almost all of them were overturned by higher courts. About 80% of all legal scholars completely disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The US Senate committee on the 2nd amendment after years of research (about 12 years back) stated that the right to bear arms was an INDIVIDUAL right and that the meaning of "The People" in the second amendment means exactly the same thing that it does in every other instance in the Constitution. It does NOT mean the National Guard.
A dialogue *must* be opened with the public. If the US public supports it they can push it right down the government, the NRA and the Militias throats.
Guns were heavily restricted in the UK. The man who did the shootings was a member of a gun club and had hoarded supplies of bullets etc...
He *also* slipped through the security net to catch potential fuckers like him.
have
I'm *not* gonna take that as an insult. I hope that is not how it was meant... (After all.. I could level the same comment at you about Dunblane couldn't I ) ; ' )
I know all about the second amendment. And I know all about the gun lobby's...
But the government of your country is supposed to be *Off the people..For the people* is it not? DO the people want guns loose everywhere?? Why not put it to the public? Start a forum.. Find out what the *people* feel. Not what the NRA and the radical militia feel.. what the populace of the USA feel!
For as long as they continue to blame this kind of thing on TV and the Net and Rock Music etc etc etc.. instead of looking at what actually caused the deaths!! Then there is no hope for you guys. It will happen again and agaimn and again.. And no-one wants that surely??
Your constitution has been amended and ratified so many times it is not the document it once was. Neither was it INTENDED to be a permanent document!
If it can be amended to include cyanide tipped hollow point rounds, why can't it be amended to ban them?
Not meant as an insult, but saying "It's easy" just is so far off the mark, and that's what I was responding to. Anyone could have said it, so I wasn't attacking *you* personally.
It is *supposed* to be that way, but it is not.
I don't know about everyone, but I don't.
These things have been done, in part.
Why does one care what happens here? There is no hope to anyone, any place in my mind. It's too late. People only pay attention to this stuff the day after it happens, the week after it happens, etc. Then after the media craze dies down people go back to their lives and do nothing. And then perhaps something happens again, and then the cycle continues.
Hmmm, I don't know about that. I read a lot on comments on various newsgroups in which people say they don't care what goes on, and they don't have respect for human life.
Let's see, how many amendments have there been? (Thinks out loud). About 28 or so, which isn't that many over a 210 year period. It is also *very* difficult to pass an amendment. One on the subject of guns would never pass. It would probably also never get to the point of being up for a vote in the first place.
Tell that to this government. They have sworn to uphold this document, and to change it would be sacrilege to them, and very unpopular. The people who want change are in the minority here, but at least they do exist.
But the solution to the problem is easy 'ban guns', carrying out the ban is the hard part but possible. IMO
people..For
That's the worrying point I think it'd be a close run thing. Americans (in general) have been bought up with guns, they don't know much about life without them. It's like asking someone in the UK not to carry an umbrella during April!.
'Human life' far to generalised.... But tell me why I should care if a bully gets a bullet between his eyes, or two gun toters kill each other.
Most of the people I personally know have never used a gun nor seen one. Luckily! There are those of us that have not been brought up with this mentality.
Then it should be continued and carried to the logical conclusion. Without guns, these things can't happen.
Medusa, that is a terribly pesemistic POV People *do* care, obviously, otherwise this debate would not even be taking place. I am not resident in the US, hell I wouldn't want to be right now. But I *do* care when innocent kids are mown down in cold blood. We are ALL human beings.
I think you'll probably find that those people are either lying or trolling for attention. (AND in the vast minority.)
the
But it should at least be *tried*. That's my point. There is a very defeatist attitude from some people towards this. They are not saying, "It's a bad idea" they are saying "It'll never happen". Well, as long as people have that attitude and don't at least *try* then a forum will never be opened and the guns will keep firing.
But as you said. It *has* been changed at least 28 times.
This one change *would* drastically alter the mindset of the US. But wouldn't it be for the better?
And some people have a more interesting way of showing their caring, by insulting people, and making massive generalizations about whole countries and their peoples. Yes, that's the sort of caring we need! <sarcasm intended>
<sigh> It saddens me. I thought people were more tolerant and open-minded than this, especially in the goth community.
The Americans only got militarily involved with WWII when they knew we were the winning side... before that they were just sending over equipment and food.
The US won THEIR part of the war by bombing Japan with atomic weapons. Saving them from having to acquire any actual military "skill".
[I may point out at this time that the WWs hardly affected you lot... wow, Pearl Harbour got bombed... woopee]
The US lost Vietnam. *heh-heh*
The US killed more allied troops in the Gulf war than the Iraqis did.
The US started to kill REFUGEES from Kosovo by mistake...
Sorry, you're wrong, sir, does Lend/Lease mean anything to you? Before being bombed by Japan, the United States sent billions in airplanes, munitions, heavy guns as well as food and equipment. As far as being on the winning side, the allies had lost every single battle with the Nazis prior to the bombing on Pearl Harbor.
Wow, are you totally absurd with this comment. I can only guess you are simply anti american. You certainly don't have a grasp of history. For four years the US military fought the Japanese from one island to another. Many battles being fought hand to hand with awesome loses on both sides. Please, we americans are not perfect, but we are the only victors in history who left their enemies better off than we found them. We aren't the imperialist the European nations once were. While our government may do some despicable and underhanded things, our people are the most generous and caring people. That is not because we are inherently wonderful, it is because we have so many ethnic peoples in our country that we had to learn to be compassionate. It took a long time, and we may not be there yet, but we never give trying to be better people. Too bad you see us as you do, you must be a very bitter person.
I was under the impression that we paid for lend/lease with military bases in Greenland etc. As for losing battles, that doesn't matter. The US has lost every war it has gotteninvolved in since the end of WWII, unless you count the cold war, which ain't over yet, comrade.
-- Daniel Strangelove "Mellow out or you will pay!"
The fact that all the destroyers sent to the UK under lease/lend were heaps of junk that had previously been rusting awaiting decommissioning from WW1. I may also point out that the US didn't join WW1 until the tide had turned..........
Ahem. Sorry about that. I was laughing too much. Couldn't hit those pesky keys.
Y'see, there have recently been a number of programs on Channel 4 and the BBC talking about how the members of the Home Guard who were issued with firearms caused more trouble than good. Reports of local people being shot by over-zealous Home Guard members were repressed because it was felt that it wouldn't do the general moral too much good.
So, it was all the NRA's fault, was it? It all makes sense now.
As for the US bailing out the UK and thus being the Golden Boys, I'd love to have seen those F1-11's attempting to bomb Libya after taking off from Florida.
Marines bombing unarmed civilians in Libya (in response to a club bombing that turned out to be a Syrian operation) is being equated to WWII?
Most of them flew from Aviano, anyway.
It wasn't the NRA organization itself that sent the guns over, it was individual members. The deal was that they would be returned after the war. I don't know of ONE that was actually returned.
Don't worry. I can promise you that NRA members won't be so anxious to help you out the next time you have problems with your neighbors.
There wasn't such a great need to ban guns, as these incedents were very few. I don't even remember a previous incident like Dunblane.
have
No it's a lack of commitment.... It's down to politics, far to many beleieve they *need* a gun to protect themsleves. The thought of denying themselves that protection alarms them, it's what they're used to. It's a way of life (or should that be death)
[email] (Bob Norton) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 23 Apr 1999 16:34:21 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
You are most definitely wrong - commited using handguns.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic." __
Dunblane was ONE incident - this is more than that!! I mean, you want another Princess to support the banning of guns and then die, or something??
Anyway, that was the Tory bastards in power then...not that they give a shit about us Scottish.
If America wanted to, tomorrow they could say "right guys and gals, no more guns", and most people would obey. Those who didn't would be arrested. Covenant's right. Case closed.
Then they'd just have to settle for soaking all the doors and windows with gasoline and torching them all, which is how the biggest mass murder in N.A. since the Sand Creek Massacre was done. Then what? Outlaw gasoline? Matches? Fire? Christ, pull your head out of your hyperliberal ass and look around at reality for a few minutes. More people are killed every year in the U.S. by blunt trauma than by gunfire. The club is still the preferred method. Are you going to outlaw sticks?
that would die for their right to be able keep their guns, you know, God, Guns then Country. There's more screwed up in this country then the "Hey man I've got a closet full of hollow points" people , that is just one of the problems.
you said it's easier to find guns in the U.S. than it is to find something 'easy to find'. guess what? it's easier to find guns for kids than it is to find cigarrettes, beer, drugs, and a lot of other products with age limits on them. i can legally arm myself, but i'd damn sure better not be smoking while i'm doing it. (just kidding, i'm actually a canadian citizen, not U.S.) i know all this because i've been to the states a few times. i had my hands on three different firearms owned by the 'father' of a friend. but don't go in THERE! that's his liqour cabinet.
Good Grief, I think there are valid points to both sides...When I was a student in downtown Chicago I used to carry a gun because I would walk to the UIC at night as I lived blocks away..it made me feel less vulnerable so I walked a little less victim-like. Was never bothered or approached. It was a 25 and consequently had no barrel. I never had to use it ..thank goddess because I took in out target shooting in Kentucky and found you had to be within 5 or 6 feet for the damn bullet to go straight before it curved up to shoot some innocent bystander in the eye watching from a loft above...well that was rather useless if I was trying to avoid bodily harm.... so I sold it legally I might add and not to a minor...ahem! About 2 weeks later I was in a subway about 1 am and a flasher started toward me...so I acted scizoid and walked toward him...apparently insanity scares unlikely sorts more than guns and I've remainded unarmed since..but I do keep a rifle for quail shooting at my mom's house and so no harm in that. I take it out for that purpose only and if my elderly mom wants to wack someone trying to break into her house then so be it.
There's also that fact that attackers are usualy cowards and even a hint that you might resist makes them seek and easier target, that's what I believe the American situation is, not the fact that they 'pack heat' it's the cofidence that's shown by the prospective victim. Even in the UK it's know that some people are victims just by the way they walk.
The other thing is that if you look at a prosepective attacker they realise there is a chance of you being able to identify them.
Answers like this are what is wrong. Im 20, and when i was young my dad would whip the crap out of me if i did something wrong. i have never been suspended from school, was in athletics and did well academically. Hell i never even got a detention i dont think. And all my frineds that didnt have parents to discipline them are either now and jail, losers who sit around all day worried about getting high, or dumbasses. What my dad taught me was that their are severe consequences to your actions and be responsible for them. These kids, most likely didnt have parents that cared or disciplined them. Im not saying that this is the the only answer, but it is part of the answer
[email] (Jetpilot57) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 22 Apr 1999 05:21:36 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
No, what your father taught you to was to be very afraid of authority, and to do exactly what you are told regardless of whether it makes any sense or not else you'll get a beating. Definitely one way to get a conformist society, but i don't really think that's what we're aiming for. remember, your own words - "whip the crap out of me."
from personal experience, getting hit by my parents for doing something 'wrong' didn't stop me, it just made me angrier and want to get revenge.
What's the first thing a child says when it gets hit: "That didn't hurt.". They respond by demonstrating defiance. Very constructive solution.
And i always love the people who come out with:"I got whipped as a child and it didn't harm me.". What's their solution? "They all deserve a good thrashing.".
I suppose it would be churlish to point out to all the good little christians that "violence begets violence."... ;-)
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
Physical pain is the only thing that seems to really get through to kids, especially young kids. By steadily spanking them every time they do something wrong when they're young, it gradually begins to sink in that, if they disobey, they're going to feel pain, so they become less likely to disobey.
Unfortunately, even if this had a snowball's chance in Damien's bedroom of working, most parents these days either both work, or are content with letting violent video games and TV babysit their kids and fill their heads with Salvador Dali-esque images of reality (melting clocks notwithstanding).
----- Steve Sutton Springfield, Georgia N 32 21 13 W 81 17 56
That entirely depends upon your definition of "discipline". AFAIR, corporal punishment has not been specifically "criminalized", while child abuse has. A parent should be allowed to spank a child and do so without "abusing" them, YMMV. Of couse, the boys in question were obviously well beyond this. Serious
Disciline also implys self-control. Something these boys did not have. There are ways to teach (i.e. by example) self-control that do not involve any punishment whatsoever.
Have you ever noticed that people who say the government are the ones taking away their rights to discipline their children are usually the ones who have no control over not only thier children but themselves.
Smacking is NOT the only way to discipline a child. This is the 90's get with the program you old farts.
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, "Grade level 3" wrote:
I have very good control over my children. Neither of them have thrown a fit in the stores like you see children doing today. Neither of them whine when they see a toy they want and I won't get it for them. I have plenty of control over myself. It's people like you that throw out generalizations with no fact to back it that seem to have a problem.
I'm only 34, so not an old fart. Though by the tone of your post and the fact that you go by the name Grade Level 3 which would make you about 8 or 9, I guess 34 is old. And what do you think the program for the 90's is? A touchy-feely decade? That's why the kids are doing the crap they are now.
This just in: Children have _always_ thrown fits in public places. Hell, _I_ threw a couple. Didn't you?? If you're bothered, that's _your_ problem.
What about people who make uninformed assumptions about who's being addressed?
Total, utter, and complete _SHULL-BIT_. If you think we have _anything_like_ a "touchy-feely" culture in NewtGingrich-IndustrialMusic-TriumphOfPunk-Land, I'd say your cultural perspective needs serious challenging.
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, [email] (Jeff Blanks) wrote:
Maybe *your* children do, but mine don't. My children are well behaved. They don't act out in the store nor in a restaurant. And no, I didn't throw fits. I was taught early on that fits don't get me what I want. Seems you haven't learned that even now.
Yea, like I said, you.
I don't know what you have where you are, nor do I care.
Talk about uninformed assumptions. I never said I was OK with the fits I threw; in fact, I'm still incredibly embarrassed over one I remember from when I was three. But treating them as this Awful Thing just makes me wonder.
being > >addressed?
And you have the nerve to razz _me_ for _my_ lameness?
I didn't mean it to be. It was just what I felt.
Fine. Fire away. I suppose you'll confuse it with slack or something painfully obvious like that.
I don't treat them as "Awful Things" just that they are improper behavior and I will not tolerate them. So they didn't throw another one ever.
Yep :-PPPPPPP
uh huh.
Well I wasn't thinking more along the lines of you being proud of touching and feeling that you shouldn't be doing with children. But as you said, that is just what I thought of at the time.
Here, here! And we wonder why so many kids are killing kids these days. It didn't use to be like this. Back in the days when we could properly discipline our kids by spanking them, you practically never heard of school shootings. Now, it seems like there's one every other month.
----- Steve Sutton Springfield, Georgia N 32 21 13 W 81 17 56
No, you're right. Those children were damaged enough to wait until they were grown, then commit their mass murders in the local post office or McDonald's. Much better, that.
A social stigma against spanking does not lead directly to kids building bombs, getting their hands on a lot of firearms, and going on a rampage. It'd be lovely if the situation were that cut-and-dried. Too bad we live on Planet Earth.
Ok, here is what i think; i dont care whose feelinngs it's gonna hurt;
First of all, people blaming parents PISS ME OFF. If i wanted to, i could organize something like that too without my parents knowing anything; i could build pipeboms in my kitchen and they still wouldn't know what i m doing, and my parents are the best in the world though (you're not allowed to even doubt about that!!). A little survey in my government class showed that every single one of us could get hold of a gun in an hour. Does that mean that we've all been brought up by a couple of irresponsible parents? If you really think there's no way your child could plan stuff like that without you knowing it, ask yourself those questions 1)Do you check your child's cabinets to see what he holds in there? 2)Do you know all the time where your child is? 3)When he's at a friend's house, do you call there and ask to talk with him to make sure? do you go over there to see if he's not building pipeboms? 4)Do you knock the door when you enter your child's room? 5)Do you go EVERYDAY in EACH room of your house? 6)Do you have guns? Do your child know where they're at? Did you teach him how to shoot a gun?
Now, unless you answered 1yes, 2yes, 3yes, yes, 4no, 5yes, 6no, no, no, your child may be a potential killer. Well, let me guess, you're thinking "I don't need to check on my child like that; i trust him." So, why are those parents not allowed to trust their child? No matter what you do, your child could be next on the newspapers covers. Isn't it sad? So, how would you like capital punishment for that? The truth is: There was no way, at least for the parents, to prevent or even know what happened; The music they listen to, the games they played, the movies they watched didn't have ANY influence on their actions. Your child would probably love "the matrix", They've probably already played Doom, and by the way, Doom is not nearly as violent as newer games, I don't really know why the media chose to blame Doom, maybe because it was the most popular (5 years ago). I listen to the same music they did, I love bloody movies and videogames, i can get hold of several nice guns in the next five minutes; does it make me a killer? What made them killers is that they were pissed off to death, not just slightly annoyed, but really pissed off beyond all recognition; every single minute at school, they were picked on and laughed at just because they were slightly different; they wore different clothes, liked intellectual stuff, were not in sports at all, were far smarter than the average, were shy, etc... So they were so pissed off that they decided to suicide, but after a second thought they realize:"hmmm, wait a minute, we are the victims here; those guys, by pushing us to suicide, it's just like they killed us." and the society teaches them that the right punishment for murder is death (hmmm, can you really tell I am against capital punishment? and by the way, did you know that USA is about the only developped country that still has capital punishment as part of it's legislation?) Anyway; they've nothing to loose, because their schoolmates mode their live worse than hell, so they decide that they're still going to suicide, but they will take some people with them, so justice is done. The fact is: all this could have been prevented, if they just hadn't been pissed off, and if the society wouldn't claim an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SUCKS, IT'S EVIL, IT DOESN'T WORK, IT'S NO GOOD. please I would like your comments at [email]
it does if you're only 5 and know where to get one.
Look cut the crap we're talking reality here it's how you're brought up or in some cases dragged up. Don't you think it's strange the the majority of violent children, violent adults sex offenders have had violent or sexually abused as a child. A family that lives next door to me... She constantly swears at her child (about 7-y-o now), I can hear her at 5:00am calling the child a fucking cunt at the top of her voice...... I hear the child saying the same to his friends in the street. She shouts at her boyfriend in the same manour argues and fights with boyfriend although I've never seen physical abuse... now what kind of life to you think that child is leading and what effect do you think hios immediate environent is having on his early development. We talk about Americans not being able to give up, guns because it's part of their 'culture' now what sort of culture do you think the kid next doors going to get. And why do you think there's so much trouble in the 'ghetto' areas of citiesbecause the kids want to be there...
Well obviously not, but most killers can get hold of guns when they want them. And those that have no intention of killing don't normally know where to get guns, call it lacking in experience if you must.
<lots of lame excuses> that of couese now one else in the world has had to endure.
Yes if guns hadn't have been so readily availble maybe they'd just have had a punch up with no lasting scares and got in out of their system. Do you really think the USA 'americans' are the only people to stuff in this way, can't you see there are other ways of solving problems rather than blasting away with a gun
if they had have been as inteligent as you'd say that found othe r'weapons' such as sarcism, humour making the jocks look stupid I wouldn't have though it would be that difficult.
GOOD.
But didn't they themselves try a form of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT that was the only option they could see was to kill the perpertraitors of the crime that was commited against them.
What a bunch of happy horseshit. As an American, I can verify that there is a reckless gun culture afoot in this country. Any twit who thinks that banning guns would NOT have a positive affect has positively got his humongous head up his ass. Let's here it now....guns don't kill people, people kill people! What a lame crock of shit. Any idiot should be able to deduce the difference between places like here, the US, where guns are everywhere, and where consequently gun-related deaths are rampant, and places like the UK or Canada, where stricter gun laws prevail. But just let one poor slob propose any sensible restriction on these weapons, and they're instantly labeled as a nazi and worse. Gun-nuts like to point out the fallacy that the multitude of guns in private hands are all that keeps the government more or less in cheque. What a hoot! They dream as dreamers do. As if the US military couldn't outgun a bunch of redneck morons. Whatever...they'll spew any lie in order to hold onto their iron.
Ps....Here's an interesting tidbit...some commentator here actually suggested that those two students surely wouldn't have gotten nearly as far, or killed as many other children, if only the teachers had been packing heat!! Now there's the solution: arm everyone.
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, "Reichart" wrote:
Not that I think we should arm everyone. But if we did, the kids would certainly take a few moments longer to consider what they were going to do knowing that all the other kids and the teachers had guns as well. It's easy being the 'big man' when you are the only one with a gun, but if everyone had a gun, the power trip isn't as high now and the consequences are graver. (no pun intended)
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, jst4laffs wrote:
Very funny. Not only do I not have webtv, but I'm sure I have a better net connection then you. Unless mindlink.net is now a cablemodem connection like @home (my isp.) I didn't think so, now go back and play on your nintendo like a good little boy.
BitchMom wrote in message news:37285ee6.360576855@news...
far,
Probably true in the first instance... but maybe those 'kids' would have looked for a bigger gun if they'd know the teachers and others had them too. Maybe opt for s submachine gun, rocket launcher maybe..... All this would achieve is upping the scale of carnage....
If everybody had been armed with rubber chickens instead, there wouldn't have been a body count, just a few bruised arses ;-)
Woking in a Univ. I wouldn't reall want to carry a pistol just in case I was confronted by a gun totting student. Especially if they knew I was armed, I assume the would have at least a weapon that would match mine in a showdown. I guess I'd just save up for my very own pocket sized nuclear deterant[1]
"Reichart" decided to put finger to keyboard on the Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:52:25 -0400. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Hmmm... snub-nose 22 vs a fully-automatic sub-machine gun (say a H&K MP5 - preferred armament of the SAS). If the kids are loaded up enough on phencyclidine or any really extreme amphetamine derivative they wouldn't even know they'd been shot.
And somehow i doubt a diddly little 22 would really scare someone with pipe-bombs and other entertaining explosives in their armament.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
Old Charlton Heston, the grandaddy of gun-nuts, practically suggested that. He believes that if there had been armed guards at the schools the death toll would not have been so high. Does he understand the concept of crossfire, ya think? Or underfuned schools hiring dumb yokels to _be_ the guards...spoky scary.
Actually, there IS as least one armed guard at all Colorado high schools. The stories I've read say that the guard in this case actually exchanged gunfire with one or both of the little bastards soon after the shooting started...neither was hit. Afterwhich, he backed off and called for reinforcements. Understandable, since he was so outgunned. So it would seem even posting armed guards does little to stanch teenage rage.
I believe in the end they will find out all of these shootings will have one thing in common. School. Its to damn stressfull and some people can be very cruel and I guess when people hit there boiling point they just flip.
Well, living in Australia, we had another one of these wankers with a gun who killed a stack of people, and our Governments knee jerk reaction was a total ban of any gun that didn't require reloading between shots. What happened??? Well, all of the law-abiding, responsible gun owners gave up family heirlooms, or sporting equipment (for a considerable loss might I add), and the nut-cases still have them. It has done nothing to reduce gun-related crime here.
Reichart wrote in message ...
is
to
let
they're
do.
far,
I don't personally agree with this solution either! I'm a little undecided on an idea. ---- Cronos ---- C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN
Because I passively called a Tec-9 a machine gun doesn't exclude me from this argument. As a matter of fact it's more a machine gun than anything else, judging by its specs.
What? Its got a larger clip and its rather big? So are some of the other pistols I've shot. Its still a semi-automatic pistol. If it looks like a duck and shoots like a duck...
And you've been on Usenet *how* long? I'd be more concerned about how a thread about fifteen-odd people getting massacred turned into a discussion of the relative merits of various pieces of military hardware; at least I would be if the victims weren't all the same kind of people that gave me grief in school.
Did you see the first funeral on telly last night? They piped Celine Dion into the church and *signed the casket*. These people were already dead.
[email] (IX Corp.) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 23 Apr 1999 23:50:37 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
It's fantasy statistics time. Let's see just who can come up with the most bullshit claim ever.
I'd love to know exactly where your evidence comes from to back up this claim. Because it doesn't exist (the evidence that is).
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic." __
Good lord, how do idiots like you manage to feed yourselves?
Here's one from a British cop: http://www.ma.ultranet.com/~eclipse/RKBA/brit-vd.html "'While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992.' Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, quoted from: Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1992, p.34,65"
Here's an article by the BBC; we all know what dupes of the NRA the BBC is: http://www.tsra.com/UKMurder.htm "The number of violent offences in England and Wales is still rising despite an overall drop in crime, according to figures to be published on Tuesday."
Here's an article by the Birtish Labour party; we all know what dupes of the NRA and gun lobby they are: http://ge97.co.uk/news_archive/mar_10/1003risk.html "March 10 1997 - The risk of being a victim of violent crime had increased four times since 1979, according to a Labour Party survey published today."
" In England and Wales, for example, there are about 34 legally held firearms for every 1000 people. In Switzerland, there are believed to be more than 430 (Home Office Submission), both target shooting and hunting being widely followed. In 1994, in England and Wales, there were about 1.2 murders and attempted murders with firearms for every 100,000 people. In Switzerland there was about 1.0."
In conclusion, you, sir, are a grade-A dolt who wouldn't know a fact if you were hit in the head with one.
Teh question to be asked is not if gun crimes have been on the rise since guns were banned (this is irrelevant) The RELEVANT question is a)are gun crimes rising faster now than they were before they were banned? and b)Since banning guns, have gun crime rates been raising faster than in countries (eg US) that havn't banned guns?
It is pretty relevant, and it was the question asked.
If you bothered to read the above, the answer is yes.
Violent crime rates in the u.s. have been dropping steadily; and have in fact dropped faster in states with "right to carry" laws on the books. Go figure.
Common sense is what tells you the earth is flat. Try looking at some facts before spouting rubbish.
IX Corp. wrote in message news:7ft4jl$4af$[email]...
Actually the answer is no. Crime and especially violent crime has been decreasing since guns were banned in the UK. Your statistics include the years before the banning if guns.
Bullshit. Certain parts of the US are now warzones where even the police won't go. Violent crime is VERY much on the increase.
Erm, if you look at the statistics it *is* true that crime has been decreasing in the U.S. Overall. Those figures sometime apply to certain cities, and sometimes they just apply generally to the whole of the U.S. I can certainly say that in the city where I live, which used to be the murder capital of the U.S., that crime has gone down statistically.
I would think that they only way you could know for sure if violent crime was on the increase would be if you were 1. a policemen, or 2. were involved and witnessed all the crimes that happened every day and kept records of how many things went on.
Medusa wrote in message news:4asU2.3977$[email]...
won't
No, I just watch the TV and read the newspapers. In the UK if a police officer is shot it is front page news. If it happens in the US it rarely even makes the papers. These school shootings (which was the original topic of conversation here) are happening all the more frequently. Gangs are rife. The fact that crime is going down is merely a statistic doctored by the government to make it look as if things are getting better when in fact things are going downhill rapidly. You only have to walk through the streets of any inner-city area (being careful to wear your bullet-proof vest) to see it happening.
:Medusa wrote in message :news:4asU2.3977$[email]...
: :No, I just watch the TV and read the newspapers. In the UK if a police officer :is shot it is front page news. If it happens in the US it rarely even makes
You lying sack of shit, that is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY false.
It _may_ be true that the killing of your average gang banger fails to make page one, but hell, it's an occupational hazard with them. In every case I've ever known about a cop *DYING ON DUTY BY ANY MEANS* gets page one coverage.
If the only way you can prove your point is by lying, then you are going to have a tough time of it.
:the papers. These school shootings (which was the original topic of :conversation here) are happening all the more frequently. Gangs are rife. The :fact that crime is going down is merely a statistic doctored by the government :to make it look as if things are getting better when in fact things are going :downhill rapidly. You only have to walk through the streets of any inner-city :area (being careful to wear your bullet-proof vest) to see it happening.
I used to _live_ in an inner city area, I've had Crack Dealers camping on the front steps of my apartment building, I lived in Chicago until last week (and witnessed a cop kicking the shit out of somone on my way out of town), and I KNOW you are wrong. I was _there_.
petro wrote in message news:250419991645400659%[email]...
officer
Not here it isn't. I only remember because I was shocked to see the report of a police officer being shot dead here only making it to page 2 of the LA Times with a bigger report somewhere near the back. As for the insult, there is no need for that. You just show yourself to over-agressive and in dire need of anger-management therapy.
Then try living in LA.
No need to lie, it's a sad fact. If the only way you can win your arguement is by thowing obscene insults about then you are the one who is going to have a tough time of it.
That was then and this is now. Just try walking down the streets of Compton and you'll see things are a lot different. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of having dinner with the family of one of the guys I work with and he lives right in the middle of the gang area. He has respect from all sides and I was safe while I was with him but speaking to him and his friends was an eye-opening experience. I met a 10 year old boy who carried a gun and had killed people. I saw several scars and missing limbs through gunshot wounds. Even outside my own apartment I see crackheads every day. I've been robbed a couple of times and was lucky to escape with my life. You see I _AM_ there, right here, right now.
Oh brother... Now we're making harsh language on the internet and murder out to be somehow equivalent.
I suppose this is the same thing as the "slippery slope" theory of drug use; "Sure, marihuana is harmless, but it leads to harder drugs."
I got news for you, schmuck. I could kill you with my bare hands just as thoughtlessly as I could kill you with a pistol. Swinging a bat or stabbing someone requires about as much thought. Somehow assuming that a gun makes a regular person more likely to kill is a lot of superstitious rubbish, which is why (as I have mentioned several times in this thread) murder and violent crime rates in the UK continue to rise, despite handgun and rifle bans.
And as for Compton; I always find it amusing when foreigners make sweeping overgeneralizations about my country based on experience with one freakish segment of it. L.A. has nothing to do with the rest of the United States. If there was any resemblance between L.A. and the rest of the country, I would have emigrated long ago. I don't doubt that someone from the U.K. would be robbed frequently in such a neighborhood; everyone knows that foreigners don't pack heat.
<<> I suppose this is the same thing as the "slippery slope" theory of drug
ooh, can't stand that argument. By that logic we should legalize Crack Cocaine, because there is proof that that doesn't lead to using harder drugs!
It's true!>>
By that logic, since all or most drug users can walk, walking is a gateway to hard drugs.
--Daniel Gordon "Will there be beer?" "Beer is not permitted." "Homer no function beer well without." "Would you rather have beer or complete and utter contentment?" "What kind of beer?" -The Simpsons, "The Joy Of Sect"
Having lived my live in surburban US, it's my turn to say "bullocks."
Urban, maybe, by the gang-bangers who think it's cool (and who don't have two brain cells to put together), but let's not throw out inaccurate blanket statements that inaccurately cover large populations of the US, shall we?
Funny, I've had lots of people piss me off, and I've never smacked a-one of them.
The only absolute in this world is a Vodka - watch your generalizaitons in the future, please.
Are we in an Orwellian society now where our fantasies and imaginings are up for public review and discipline?
Fantasies are not the problem. The problem is when those who are unable or unwilling to separate Fantasy from Reality (for whatever reason - chemical imablance, lack of anger management, etc.) across over the line, bringing their Fantasy into the Real World.
There's no crime in dreaming about shooting my boss. The problem comes when I stop realizing that it's a fantasy and that it should have no bearing on reality.
I didn't say it accounted for all members within society. As such, my statement was accurate.
I'll stand by the statement but put in the corollary that different people have different breaking points. The fight-or-flight reaction will eventually kick in if someone hassle you enough and, in specific situations, the fight option will manifest.
Check your recent newspaper reports and ask me that again.
Correct. The bigger problem is trying to work out who those people are or how to prevent them from doing so.
In an ideal world you are correct. However, you must not fall into the usual trap of assuming that, just because you are able to control your emotions, so can everyone else.
IX Corp. wrote in message news:7g396q$8sd$[email]...
is
need of
banned.
It's a persons mental state that is being question is it not. Can it not be shown that ones' mental state rules the way one acts physically towards another.
No that requires a form of courage and determination to carry out your sad threats a gun just needs it's trigger pulled even the lowest for of wanker can do they can't they?.
superstitious
So why do people intent on commiting crimes carry guns... Oh soryy silly me is for protection in case there victim should strike back.
And we stilll say your wrong. You've still included results from 1981! And we are talking gun related crime still.
sweeping
freakish
I assume neither has New York, Washington (ex murder capital of the world)
That's interesting.... So if someone isn't 'packing heat' (macho term for carrying a gun) they tend not to be robbed. So the best way of not getting robbed is to not carry a gun, So all those poor people in the USA are carrying guns for protection even though they are more likely to be robbed because they are carrying guns.... I know there are some weirdo's about but I didn't think it was this bad.
Interesting that not having a fear of something dangerous is something to be proud of.
Is there anyone, (any country) that can understand this mentality.
Covenant wrote in message news:7g8910$e8r$[email]...
NG
Well I'll reserve my judgment there... I can't reply to author on my I.E. And if I'm not really careful with my clicks it marks the whole conversation as read so then I have to mark them all unread then read them all again... Hours of fun.
year
Don't mind mud, it's when the bullets start flying that worries me... Sorry I forgot bullets don't kill people, anymore than guns do, So it must be the people. I wonder if 12-y-o can legally carry guns and if not why not, unless they can't legally protect themselves....
Is that a question? Do you speak english? Are you trying to tell me that harsh language on the internet is equivalent to murder, or leads to murder? Well then, I guess we ought to immediately outlaw all harsh language, right?
No more courage required is required for murder by non-firearm, just a little more muscular effort. The main advantage of guns over other weapons is the fact that they do not require physical strength, allowing a weak person to use them as effectively as a strong person.
What is it with you British jackasses and assuming everything is a direct threat? Saying "I could kill you" is a lot different than "I will kill you." What, you think I am gonna fly to Britain and beat you to death in a soccer match? Yutz.
What has this to do with anything? Someone bent on crime will do so irregardless of the tools used. You still have not explained to me how putting a gun in the hands of a normal person is supposed to make them into a slavering murderer. The latter attitude says more about your own mental state than that of the public at large.
And you have still yet to produce a single, solitary shred of evidence for what you say, wheras I have produced ample evidence proving you to be dead wrong.
You can stick your fingers in your cabbage ears and scream "I'm not listening" until you turn blue, but the facts will not change to suit your version of reality. I suppose you schnooks still believe in the British Empire as well...
Funny you should mention New York and Washington. Both cities have the strictest and longest term (decades long) handgun bans in the country. Funny how both handgun crime and overall murder and violence rates have risen geometrically since the law-abiding citizenry was disarmed. You had better go tell New York and Washington crooks that all those guns they're killing people with are illegal.
And yes, these cities have nothing to do with the slimey combination of suburbs and slums that is known as Los Angeles. I would live in Washington or New York under the proper circumstances; never in the cesspool of L.A.
It is typical someone of your mental stature would read that backwards. I suppose dyslexia is the only way one could justify your stance while having more than two brain cells to rub together.
Crooks do not rob people who are likely to be armed, because they would generally rather not be shot. Golly, what a difficult concept to grasp... Kinda like "mutual assured destruction."
IX Corp. wrote in message news:7g63v8$7kk$[email]...
No it's not a quwstion you were meant to answer, but a statment, you were meant to think about.
No, of course not but people with violent tempers, usually use violent languge especially where it isn't necessary, it's the only way they have of putting their point across. and if you satill don't understand them they shout, then use violent actions. Maybe you've never seen this before. <Sarcasim >in case you didn't get it.
No need it doesn't hurt the intelligent.
as
sad
No wrong... First you have to believe that you are likely to come out the victor in the battle.
Would you face mike tyson in the ring without a handgun?, I wouldn't, even with one.
I though we were *discussing* what sort of person uses firearms.
superstitious
Wrong. A bank robber would not hold u[ a bank waving a half eaten banana would he?.
I never said that, but how many murders have been commited due to say road rage?. A person get pissed off because someone 'cut him up' at the lights. In the UK this usually results in much waving of hands sexual gestures, matcho postering and then as a last result one gets out his car and goes over to the other in order to start a fist fight.
Now I'd assume in the USA the drivers wouldn't normally leave there car but get a handgun out and wave it about. But please you or others tell me what happens....
for
You mean the one starting in 1981?.
your
Personally couldn't care less.
How about these stats I've been sent,
____________________________________________-
Handgun murders (1996):
USA 9,390
Great Britain 30
Japan 15
(Handgun Control Inc., 1998)
American children are 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in other industrialised countries. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and 9 times more likely to die in an accidental shooting. __________________________________-
I've asked a friend for details Here goes haven't had a chance to check them yet.... 24 pages of stuff....... Not a few odd lines of rhetoric.
I think this is mainly about licencies but I havn't waded through it yet.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/statf.htm
Could you tell me where these crooks get their guns from?.
You really shouldn't try to out smart me like this your making yourself look small. and it's not working is it, avoiding the Qs too.
I see now I understand...... The aim is to arm every citizen with a gun and then nobody gets robbed/murdered.... I wish you'd said that earlier it's so clear now.. ????????????????????????
Just one thing...If a person has a handgun, will someone with two handguns or a larger gun not be tempted to rob someone with a smaller gun.
Isn't it a little cowardly of a robber to only go for those that can't defend themselves.
What are the stats on this is it only the unarmed that get killed/robbed etc.. at gun point?.
Then why didn't the 'cops' shoot the two students....there were armed weren't they. or was it because they were outgunned?.
One last thing..... Pleas aviod sneding me emails as :-
A/ I prefer open discussions B/ We are installing secure server software and things are bouncing back and forth, and I'bve had to reformat because I've been told my computer is mail-bombing bulgaria, along with other computers around the world. C/ If I want to fill my mailbox with crap, I'll forward messages from the NGs myself thanks all the same.
: I know plenty of people who use loud lanugage specifically because they do *not* get involved in phsycial violence. That is how they vnt their anger at things instead of beating them to a pulp or physically thretening them in some other manner.
: I have no reason to ever want to get into a ring with Mike Tyson. If I did it would be for a boxing match, not a shooting match. Since I consider boxing to be one of the most pointless sports on the planet I would never do that, so what exactly is your point here?? When I am usually facing a mugger the 3 things I want with me are my brains, the space to vacate and the knowledge that I am capable of dealing with an armed aggressor using those two methods. If those two fail me, then my steel toed boots are the physical line of defense for me. If my life is seriously threatened I *might* use a gun, but that is a situational decision. Depends if I think it will be useful or just make things all that much worse.
But he can walk into a bacnk with a fake or real home made bomb on his chest and get even more compliance than someone with a gun.
:
: Let's see considering such things happen to me every day, 99.9% of the time people yell and gesture and that is the end of it. On rare occasions someone will pull a gun and shoot someone and it makes the news, because it is not normal by any means. Your assumptions are asinine and don't do your argument any justice. The biggest problem in these threads is that some foreign folks, such as yourself, have the assumption that all american have guns and love nothing better than threatening each other with them whenever possible. Such is not the case. Many americans do not own guns and have no interest in doing so. The vast majority of legal gun owners behave responsibly and do not wave their guns around or use them as constant tools of intimidation. Get over that stereotyep and maybe the position of some others in this thread might make sense to you.
:
:
Of course, those numbers fail to mention that while those facts are true, that gun death is no where near the top of the list of causes of child death in the united states. So while people are obsessing about guns killing children, they are not doing anything about the bigger causes of death. Kind of similar to women with breast cancer. So much as been done to educate women on breast cancer above everything else, that most women don't realize that *heart disease* is the number one cause of death for women and not breast cancer.
Given that your numbers came from Handgun Control Inc, the same group that brought you the Brady Bill that does nothing to resolve *any* of the issues it was claimed to fix, the numbers are suspect. HCI posts its numbers to shock people into an emotional response and they do. I prefer to get my statistics from other sources that show the whole picture and not just snippets.
:
:
: Thanks for posting those sites. I've wanted to take a look at some of those bits of info...:)
: Since none of them can legally own guns in New York city they get them illegally. It is presently easier to purchase a gun illegally in the united states than it is to purchase one legally in most states. All you need is the cash and the source. No paperwork, no hassles, no police file, no nothing. Not exactly what I would like to see become the standard in this country.
I agree the insults are a waste on *both* sides of the equation. Though the point is that in Florida, after they passed their right to carry law, overall violent crime rates went down. One are where they soared, though, was against tourists. Criminals started targetting rental cars in the expectation that since they were in a rental car the drivers were not from Florida and would not be armed. Not a good scene. Resulted in a lot of changes to the way rental agencies denote their cars now in some areas.
I don't really agree with this point. The aim is not to aim every citizen with a gun. It is to give the option to those who would like to. This leaces the guess work in the puzzle, as you never quite know if someone is armed or not. Either way, though the US government and populace as a society should work to fix the social problems in our country. Banning guns won't fix them. Of course making everyone have guns won't fix them either. I will still keep enjoying my target shooting and competition long after those problems get resolved, with luck. I would like to see it stopped, but that will require an ethical revolution within the country. Not everyone is on the same page morally which is why the US has the crime problem it does.
Who can say??
Yep, but those who commit crimes are not interested in being brave just getting what they want. Scaring people out of their stuff is the best way to get that with the least possible risk. An unarmed target who has never seen a decent knife or gun upclose ever before is an easier target, because their fear at seeing such an item paralyzes them. I have had guns pointed at me before and know enough about them that seeing one doesn't scare me out of hand. My knowledge of weapons also kept me from being mugged by an idiot with an unloaded revolver (which is pretty obvious from the front) and another who had an air gun pretending it was much more than it really was. Such knowledge is bad for those punks who prey on others because it takes away the abject fear from their efforts....
Not likely. I don't have any definitive numbers, just the numbers shown in areas where gun ownership and/or concealed carry were banned the violent crime rate rose dramatically, but in those areas where the opposite happened the violent crime rate dropped dramatically.
They weren't outgunned, they just weren't stupid. Those officers are trained to approach things methodically and not just give into their emotions and charge into a possibly deadly situation. IMO, they acted smartly. It does surprise me now how much flak they are taking because of that. All these people crying out that those kids went in and shot the hell out of the school want to know why the police didn't charge in and shoot the hell of those kids. That is a pretty difficult position to defend. As the saying goes in Big Trouble in Little China, "Cops have got better things to do than get killed."
There was one highly publicized case where two assailants held up a bank and had such heavy armor on that only through the help of the local gun store were the officers able to acquire weaponry to help them take them down. That is a sad state of affairs. Luckily it is the *exception* and not the rule. While we are on the subject of cops the most interesting thing about gun control is that most police groups and unions do *not* support gun control, because they are aware that gun control is not going to solve the problems. Add in the number of officers that have been helped by armed citizens when in trouble and you get another reason as well.
Well good for them pity everyone isn't like that but.....
even
wel I'm not a lover of boxing but I thinkit's far less pointless than hunting.
That before an aggressor attacks he will most likely access the chance of being succsessful, his weapons (whether it's muscle or guns) will need to be better than the victims. How will he know whether you have a gun?
The only sure way a person can win in that situation is to have a gun...
So it makes sense that an aggressor will carry a gun...... The aggressopr usualy has a plan of action and will be able to fire long before you get your hands on your weapon ... ooo errr sounds rude. .
If it's fake he'll kill no one..... How many robbers rob a bank with explosives taped to themselves or hold a gun to their own head.... The object of 'carrying' a gun is to enforce your point of view. Not to make salmon and cucumber sandwiches.
occasions
It's a lotmore rare here.
I think we do understand that, but we see all these gun related deaths and then we're told that guns don't kill people, and americans only carry guns for self defence so they can protect themselves.
Any idea about percenges.... It's just that we're told that Americans don't want guns band and now we're told that a largest propotion don't have guns anyway, so I can't quite understand we're the objections come from.
as
I would hope so otherwise I really couldn't find the logic in them being legal.
I know it's a sterotype but it fits those that are doing to killing, or were the two Trench... killers legally owner their guns with licences?.
than
likely
Well I've been informed by another that these aren't true..
QUOTE
___________________________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ They have been repeatedly discredited as a source of reliable data. You might as well ask Nazis for statistics on Jewish people. _________________________________________________
Now you see why we get confused.......
Well yes but
Accident Facts,_1994_by National Safety Council Staff: Firearm-related accidental deaths involving children 14 and under in the U.S. totaled 227 in 1991
I know it's only 200 odd kids but..... If this happened over a period of a decade they'd be uproar.
How can anyone be so complacent about nearly 230 kids being killed. ? Just becase more drowned......!
Yep but you can't go in to a shop and buy a dollop of breast cancer, and shoot it at someone else so it kills them.
that
Well I don't know how to tell which are facts from fiction..... I really wouldn't want to believe 'facts' from the 'local' gun club either, or their lobbyists.
So are you saying that effectively guns are banned in NYC?
though,
from
That would be logicaly for them, it's a bit like moving the postitutes from'our' area so they don't bother us... just let someoneelse 'suffer'
Here UK tourists are a target too, but it's because they are more likely to be carrying cash and valuables and less 'streetwise' than the locals. It has nothing to do with guns. A friend went to Miami in 1986 and was warned about this and about guns... there was a move to change the identifialbe plates.
citizen
is
I understand this but I'd like to know the sort that are choosing to arm themselves. A true pacifist wouldn't arm himself and as implied would therefor mak a 'better' target. So rather than removing guns from criminals let one set of law abiding folks arm themselves and those that find arming themselves wrong let them rely on other.
Yep, I'm glad that's come up, social problems start at a very young age... If you haven't got what your neighbour has you have 3 main choices
1/ Work to get it 2/ Take it by force 3/ Ignore it.
Allowing anyone that wants a gun doesn't help, the minority they will given the chance take it by force if option 1 isn't available.
Too late maybe, takes at least a generation for social, issue to resolve
I don't blame you I do things that aren't legal in this country, but they don't harm others even if someone breaks in and takes my illegal bits away. ;-)
I'd like to live in a country where you could do whatever you wished but sometimes the greater good and all that... The needs of the many outway the needs of the few etc....
crime
Yep.
I still don't understand the term violent crime....and how it's used. Here I beleive it is very difficult for a women to say she wass raped unless she has physical scars to prove it.
That's a relief... I've seen a few posting saying the police should have blasted them away as the police were armed.
of
I think that's were the socail problems come in I don't like the idea of all these posters 'packing heat' to protect themselves god know what might happen.
And in the UK it's the oppersite. The police don't seem too keen on being armed in general. The definatly don't want the public armed as that's where a large proporion of criminals get their weapons in the first place,
I guess it has to a lot to do with people as they say guns don't kill people. ;-)
No arguments there. You do not need a gun to believe you are likely to come out victor in a street crime... Unless your victim is likely to have a gun.
Give me a katana, a baseball bat, a spray bottle of prussic acid or nicotine, or even a simple dagger. Don't need a gun to kill Mike Tyson or anyone else. On the other hand, criminals typically do not rob or assault hulking 240 lb professional boxers. They generally prey on ordinary people... who could defend themselves with a handgun.
No, sans firearms, he'll likely make a fake gun, a bomb, or hold a knife to an employees throat.
You implied that the only reason to have a gun is to commit a criminal act.
"Road rage" is typical media hyped bullshit that, while based on something people can relate to, does not actually exist.
As for your television imagery of americans as a bunch of dudes in cowboy hats running around threatening each other with handguns, you sir, don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You automatically assume that, because someone posseses a gun, they are going to run around waving it about like some big penis. Fact of the matter is, 99% of non police who carry will never draw their weapon. Hell, for the year I was a police officer (in a crime infested part of town I might add), I never needed to draw any of my weapons, and only one of my friends ever even needed to pull his billy club.
Yes ladies and germs, an american former police officer is against handgun control. Funny how that works. Funny how most american police officers are also against handgun control.
No, I mean the one starting in 1997 which you apparently failed to read.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ They have been repeatedly discredited as a source of reliable data. You might as well ask Nazis for statistics on Jewish people.
Which other industrialized countries? Certainly not South Africa. As for the "for the children" argument, Clinton has been using that one to bring on his own "benign totalitarianism" in the u.s.; that very phrase was used as an excuse for the Computer Decency Act (1 and 2), gun control bills, "Anti terrorism bills" (which got rid of that pesky "due process" and allows the cops to tap up to 1% of american telephones silmutaneously), and so on.
As for the hard facts of children being injured by firearms; it frankly is not a problem in the United States. The actual number is very small. Here, have some more facts:
Accident Facts,_1994_by National Safety Council Staff: Firearm-related accidental deaths involving children 14 and under in the U.S. totaled 227 in 1991, trailing many more commonplace causes of accidental death among children, including car accidents (3,087 deaths), fire (1,104 deaths), and drowning (1,104 deaths).
If you just count handguns, allegedly the most dangerous firearm that everyone talks of banning, the number is about 60. As another comparison: in 1980 13 children under the age of 5 died of handgun related deaths, wheras 381 died of drowning in swimming pools (same source)
In 1988, CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report" for March 11, 1988 at pp. 144-5 reported an average of 10-15 children under age 5 who were shot, compared to several hundred who died because their parents fell asleep while smoking cigarettes.
Uh, why are you citing a source as supporting your position when you have not even read the damned thing?
Same place British crooks are getting theirs; illegal channels. I have nothing against cracking down on gun runners and disarming felons as best we can. My argument is against disarming citizens who obey the laws, which is all that most gun control laws ever manage to do.
I rather doubt it. All it takes is one bullet to get dead.
Why yes. You should go tell all those cowardly criminals what a bunch of spineless cowards they are, and that they should mend their ways.
Have a trip to Florida and find out. Since they began arming the citizens there, crime has lowered dramatically, though criminals generally only go after tourists with rental cars. Because they are known not to have guns, in case you didn't pick up on that.
Sorry; it is a feature of my Usenet software to CC all Usenet posts. I have no interest in discussing this with you privately.
Just to let everyone know, there has been a shooting that took place up in Taber, Alberta, which left on dead, and another wounded. The gunman was a ex-9th grader that went to this small farmland school once. I just hope we won't be seeing a resurgence of this type of aftershocks happening eslewhere.
Oy...<sigh> I live in a small hick town in Pennsylvania, and we had a hit list and a bomb threat incident yesterday (April 28) (which the authorities are trying to cover up, 'cause they don't want us changing to another school tor something). No one got shot or anything, and there wasn't a bomb actually present, but this epidemic is spreading, and it totally freaks me out!
...and of course for each copycat bomb scare that is reported by the media, there's a chance that one moe kid will look at it and go, "Well, it worked for them, why not me?"
Tirya (gee, could I get a day off work if I called in a bomb scare to my office?)
A quick question that you may or may not know the answer to:
There have been something like 8 of these schoolyard killings in the past 18 months (according to what I remember hearing on the news last week).
How many of those incidents took place in states that have concealed-carry laws? Anyone know? I saw Lupo's comment about the crime rate in Florida dropping (they have laws that permit CCW, I believe) and then pointed out a possible correlation between that and the preying on tourists by criminals, as the tourists are all but guaranteed to be unarmed...
Just curious, as I don't know what states permit CCW or not.
I know that Oregon permits it, and Colorado does not. Missisippi also permits it, and in fact the assistant principal in that school actually stopped the shooting by holding his gun on the perp.
Here's a weird idea. A tad off-the-wall, I know, but someone may like to go somewhere with it.
It seems to me that, in a country which is comprised of different states, some of which make carrying illegal and others which actively sell firearms in corner-shops, that it might, conceivably, be possible for someone to move a gun from one state to another without too much hassle. Of course, this ignores the possibility of the numerous inter-state border controls and searches which are in place, thus preventing such occurrences from happening.
Hmmm, I wonder where I could take this. What would happen if *ALL* the states in the Union decided to make the ownership of firearms illegal? What if it was a criminal offence to be in possession of a firearm unless you were a member of a government-sanctioned civil or national defence force? I'm going out on a limb, here, but I think there's a minute possibility it may reduce the number of firearm related incidents. Immediately. For good.
Don't mind me. I'm just a Utopia-Seeking Whacko who can't possibly know about such things. I mean, if you make it illegal to carry a gun, to import a gun and even to own a gun on a National level it will obviously have no visible effect on gun-crimes because the criminals will be able to easily obtain their firearms from... erm... from...
Oh, I give up.
Fox
NP - "COD" (or is it called "Cure For Pain"?) - Dream Disciples
Fox wrote in message news:372f9ba7.5856081@news...
I know the feeling........
Here's another hting that I don't understand... Please anyone point out my illogic, I want to learn how things work over the pond.
It's importent thing to remember is that those law abiding gun carriers only carry them to protect themselves from nasty criminals, who of cousre won't attack (sorry less likely too) anyone that isn carring a weapon.
So they decide to bring in a law that allows you to carry concelled weapons so the criminals can't see that you have a gun and therefor have NO reason not to attack a person. Maybe it's because they want people to be attack and then have to defend themselves in order to maintain the "I must have a gun to protect myself lobby)
Wouldn't it make more sense to carry weapons unconcilled so everyone can see whose 'packing heat'. Then that person wouldn't be attacked would they. Then it would be logical to arm everyone.
So can anyone explain to me why it is (in some states) legal to carry a concilled weapon and not be be up front and honest and have it visible.?
Why not produce clothing that says "I'm carrying a gun F. off criminal" You could wear the gun as a medalon, in a shoulder bag, You could even have one with head written on it as a fashion accessory.
It seems the lastest fashion is to go around like a bill board with Nike written all over you advertising a company for free !
Maybe Smith & Weston could give discounts on their guns to everyone that wore their T-Shirts and openly displayed their guns.
The theory behind concelead weapons, if that if a criminal knows that a weapon might be hidden, he'll have to assume that everyone has a gun, and thus won't attack anybody. (except for people under 18)
Well, you'd still have the massive number of criminals that wouldn't give up their guns.
You'd piss off a large number of citizens that have a significant investment in their collections.
You'd make it easier for criminals to do their jobs. The police don't exactly appear when you dial 911. They take up to 20 minutes to an hour.
But if I'm bigger than you, I can still beat you up and rape your wife can't I? I can still break into your house after cutting your phone line and rob you can't I? I can still attack you children on the way to school and as long as a cop isn't around I have a reasonable chance of success.
If you come to Atlanta for C6 (assuming we get it) I'll take you to a gun range and show you the gambut, from small concealable handguns to modern and not so modern rifles.
[snip]
Well its the uncertainty. If a criminal is concerned that the owner of a home may be armed, he will go to further lengths to be sure that owner is not home. If there is a chance a prospective victim is armed and seems alert, the criminal will choose a less aware and easier victim. If a fellow quarrels with a neighbor and there is a chance that neighbor is armed, he is less likely to go pound on the neighbors door and demand to be let in.
If people in a certain area tend to be armed, the criminals tend to do things that don't bring them face to face with the victims.
Open carry is more appropriate in the country and outdoors. In urban environs, its less attractive. Open carry also removes the uncertainty.
Depends on the state. The laws vary like opinions. In georgia, open carry isn't specifically forbidden, but it tends to cause a disturbance and will result in cops getting nervous around you. Concealed carry has all the benifits of open and fewer drawbacks. Its an ace in the hole for an intended victim.
It makes you a target and a hardend felon is more likely to just pop you and take the gun.
Maybe, if you would kindly understand that the right to carry a gun here in the States, exists in only in 38 states. Where it is mandatory to carry a gun, crime is way way down. And violent crime is non existent. However, the benefits of crime prevention is only a side issue for the reason the second amendment to our constitution exists The primary purpose for the amendment is to protect the citizens' rights from a tyrannical government.
Now, you won't have to post again, since I am quite certain you now fully understand why americans will never give up our fundamental right to own and bear arms. And please try not to compare a relatively small island nation to a continental one.
Mandatory to carry a gun..? what you mean you get arrested for not being armed now? States of the US where 99% gun ownership holds tend to be the less populated rural areas.. which have low crime rates anyway.. except for the tendancy for the locals to beat the crap out of anyone without a stetson.. :)
Its not really working is it.. The government just has to be a bit cleverer.
Oh yes, we certainly do... <Circles finger about left ear>
Why not? The US is conveniently broken up into nice, near independantly governed states.. the UK is culturally and politically the nearest equivalent country.. of course if this is just your typical american big dick attitude rearing its ugly head again.. I apologize..
Please will all the gun nuts go back to alt.gothic now.. your posts make me feel physically ill... I lose faith in people when I see how easy it is for the media to brainwash an entire nation.
Hell, I don;t even know why he thought the comparison was unfair.. cultural differences (in the form of gun laws) are what we were talking about.. I think he just said that in a 'my dads bigger than your dad' kind of way.
Yeah.. sorry.. I keep forgetting that.. why are nice, reasonable people so *quiet!*.. erm.. I'll shut up now..
Could be.. the firearms trade probably makes at least as much money as the tobacco industry.. Personally I think the government gets edgey about the armies of potential gun-toting revolutionaries out there, and would probably like nothing better than to ban firearms.. its the *public* that seem to want the damn things.. think they're in the A-team or something. Most gun enthusiasts have probably never seen the damage one of the bloody things can do to the human body.. I doubt they'd regard them so favourably if they had... still, nowt so queer as folke.
Thats registered.. what about sales to other countries?
Rights.. pah.. thats like saying it's you're right to stab your next door neighbour and if the cops arrest you.. they're taking away your personal freedom. No-one has rights.. that term was *invented* by governments to give people the illusion that they can do what they want. However, society wouldn;t work unless there are proviso's.. stopping people from doing exactly what they want so.. bang, there go your rights.. In the grown up view of reality its quite obvious that a prosperous society must perform a careful balancing act between personal freedom and 'do what though wilst' type anarchy. Ask people if they feel safer in the ghettos of New York or Singapore and they'll say Singapore.. they'd also say they wouldn;t want to live there.. too little freedom. The US has too much.. esp. on firearms.. you *can* have too much freedom when it involves doing harm to others. In my view, the UK *and* the US both use too much restriction on substance abuse, something that harms only the perpetraitor if given free reign.. but thats a different topic.
So now your saying that guns are part of US culture?.. wow clutch those straws! If you were talking about people wearing cowboy style gunbelts with imitation (ceremonial) firearms in them.. I think it would be cool.. if your trying to tell me a highly destructive and offensive weapon should be carried as a matter of respect to the flag (snigger)..
LOL
Which is OK from a selfish, looking after number one type way.. but those muggers are going to be fairly convinced that they need to get hold of some firearms now to defend themselves againsed their victims! Yet again the whole thing escalates. Next time you're mugged it could be with a gun.. what do you do then? get a bazooka? Its unfortunate that you live in a society so violent that you have to carry a firearm to defend yourself againsed unarmed assailents.. but I never said the gun laws were the *only* thing wrong with US culture :) I'm assuming the attackers were not similarly armed (as they would likely have blown off your head as you reached for your precious berretta).. if you feel that threatened in you environment why not carry a sword stick instead? or a con of mace? or a tazer? or any of the other less-lethal alternatives.
Have these figures been cross correlated with data concerning the greater expenditure on effective home security devices in the US? No didn't think so.. I doubt very much if the difference is due to the burgurler suspecting a firearm is in the building. Yet again someone has used a truly terrible statistic to try and prove that extremely lethal weapons are a good thing.. sure..
Rubbish.. rapist burgurlars are quite rare in this coutry.. I don't know about the US though.
All very good for the individual.. all very bad for your society.. but if thats what you want..
Paranioa, paranoia, la la la la la. I don;t feel the need to worry too much about my government turning into a facistic regime.. I may be naive, but I believe I enjoy life more by not giving this much thought.
And you think firearms in personal use is going to make a difference?.. oh dear.. A good, stable system of government.. like that wich exhists in our countries, should stop that from happening.. it's been around for centuries, has its own built in regulations and failsafes.. and is certainly currently stable.
So what are you saying? that we should all attempt to keep guns in case the government decides we are to be destroyed and taken away? The people of Serbia and Bosnia can't afford firearms for personal use.. had they been able to.. and given the instability of their government, I'm sure they would have agreed with you there. However that is a country in war.. the US and UK are not currently in the state of civil war.. the Us government seems pretty stable, the UK's even more so despite everyone not being armed! What youre trying to do is bring politics into an argument where it doesn;t really belong..
Your forgetting.. goths are currently being scapegoated in the US because of the cultural dependance on firearms refusing to let people consider that the eccessive freedom to carry these weapons is to blame for the recent tragedy.
Well why not just go and hide up in the mountains with the other.. survivalists I think they're called? Maybe they're right, mybe not, but its a hell of a way to live. Honestly your better off protecting yourself with knowledge than weapons. From what you've said, your part of the US is obviously in far worse a state than I imagined.. I'm glad I live over this end of the world... maybe you should ditch the gun and move to pennsylvania.
Hell, I've seen all manner of dead things in real life.. I still feel nauseous at the sight of a real mutilated human corpse, be it on TV or whatever. If I had the misfortune to see one live.. I suspect I'd puke. Shooting dogs and deer isn;t going to have quite the same emotional impact as blowing someones head off.
Noted, but I still thik you can defend yourself with numerous alternatives, not least knowledge and forethought, without resorting to an archaic stored chemical energy device to throw small bits of base metal at your assailent with an effective mass of several tonnes.
Please show me the large numbers of gun owners who use as much ammunition in a week/month/year as a smoker smokes cigarettes.
Ummmmm.....it's not relevant, but why can't we carry those in the UK?
While popular for a long time, the view that the rights/wishes of the individual supersede that of "society" is slowly disappearing with increased penalties for illicit drug use and trafficking, an increase in gun control, an increase in anti-smoker legislation, and a decrease in the amount of privacy one can expect to be respected by a snoopy government or boss.
Ah, no, stop. I meant why can't I legally carry a tazer, or can of mace here? Especially when...um, guy was it?.....it's been suggested as a sensible, defense-only, virtually harmless alternative to carrying a gun?
Because they can and have been used by criminals. If a victim should drop or have their gas or tazer removed from them, they can then be used on someone else.
There was one case many years ago wear a girl thought she was being followed she heard footsteps behind her and as the 'attacker' tapped her on the shoulder she squired him in the face with a can of some anti-rape gas, he fell to the ground in pain and had to rush to hospital. He was about to tell her that she dropped her purse when she got off the bus.
(although I wouldn't be opposed to women carying these but I wouldn't want one used on me if I were at an ATM)
Yes, of course, mistakes will be made, and I can more than understand banning guns in the UK, but mace and tazers is getting absurd. I'm highly ticked that, should 3 guys decide that I bear a striking resemblance to a football, the police and the government expect me to run, or take it, or defend myself barehanded. As long as you're going to allow people to carry knives or a number of other objects that can be used as weapons, it seems you ought to allow for mace and/or tazers as well. If I did have to fight someone off, I'm more likely to do lasting damage with an improvised weapon than with a can of mace.
Actually they expect you to take a beating or run, the authorities take a dim view of you hurting an attacker (or they almost did in my case - it took a lot of talking!). I used to get a lot of hassle when i stayed in my old home town, until i broke a guy's arm when him and two of his associates decided to 'do in the freak'. i was the one who ended up having to explain to the police why i was fine and the aforementioned 'gentleman' was going to hospital!
Aren't knives banned here as well? I was under the impression they were?
Freddy
You think you go to heaven when you die? you come to me!
Really? Are you sure? Flicknives (that's switchblades if you're from across t'pond) have been prohibited for Godknows, but there didn't use to be any special law covering locknives. Has it changed?
i think this is the sorrist reason to use why someone shouldn't be allowed to carry some form of protection if they so desire. oh, gee they could take it away from you and use it on you... and they can't a damn bat...or anything else one chooses to use... we live is a sometimes quite viloent society and the poice cannot and are not there to protect can we expect them to be there right when you need them....like you have time to stop call for helpwhen someon is beatin gthye shit out of you./...its abit useless if you can't even get awya from the attacker...there was the incident a couple years backof a woman dying by a raptist, who was set free after commiting uneccessary brutality before leaving the raped victum of 16 by chopping her arms off at the elbows...the woman called police even said who it was but was dead before they got there....number one the man should have been dead and unable to commit another crime of the nature that he did...he was not simple rape...he went beyond rape...and that is the type of crime that should bew swiftly given a death sentence and get on with it....this tolerance of the most brutal of crimes as porduced a lack of fear of authority and retribution coming from the hands of the goivernment whos PRIMARY peupor for being is to proetect us from the likes of those who dye men behind trucks and drag them to thewir deaths...or leave young girlin ditch with arms after raping them...may he know no mercy as he showed none when he stands before his makere as he will..... and many others who have gotten away with horrifc crimes toward their fellowman...a day of reckoning will come....it is sometime the only thing that makes it bearable when i see our government release vivous criminals to walk and kill again...while we put a pot smoker in jail for what 5 to 10 years...while a murder gets out in 8 for second degree murder...go figure that one please....explain that to me...uh? cause i think it is dispicable...and a sad blot on our system of justice.
Well I'm not to sure what you are saying. But in reality an attacker will usually use suprise tacktics, Whn nmy mother was mugged thet attacker grabbed her bag first, if she'd hs a gas canisor or knife that's were it would have been kept. The chances are that the attacker would have gotten hold of the defence weapon first.
<snip> Bit's I couldn't really understand but the 'justice bit
Well There are a lot of people out there that believe that there's no such thing as a deterrent, and punishment is of little use. But the biggest problem is proof, with incompetent and corrupt police (Some), lawyers that can be bought and with evidence that can be altered it is difficult proving someone is 100% guilty and you therefor can't convict with a degree of certainty.
The military. The people who commit x numbers of gun related incidents every day in the US.
The comparison with cigarrette companies was perhaps a poor example. The point was that the firearms industry is big business. It sells to the government, abroad, everywhere.
You can, just not legally :). I was trying to say that *anything* would be better than a gun. Personally I'm grateful for the fact that I've never felt the need to do that. Martial arts classes in my youth and a good level of awareness has been enough to keep me out of trouble.
Yeah, thats what I'm saying.. sometimes freedom is good.. sometimes its bad.. its very difficult to wiegh up the consequences of a 'right' againsed its benefit. For example, you don;t like street camera's keeping an eye on you in the mall.. but I've breathed more than one sigh of relief after seeing a good CCTV system installed in a public car park. In a way, the survaillence *gives* you the freedom to park your car there without fear of it being broken into.
Getting back on topic.. I think the *freedom* to buy and own guns and ammunition is offset by the *freedom* to walk down the street unarmed without fear of getting shot at.
I don't see how you can make a blanket statement like that.
Fine for you. I personally, after having lived in some of the worst neighborhoods of 3 cities in the US and spent time in others, have never been more afraid of my own physical safety than in Plymouth, England.
My friend has a flat for sale in Plymouth. He works for the MOD security. There's one part of town that's bad but only because it's full of squadies... from all over the world and there's obviously not enough availble females to keep them amused.
A friend of mine said similar things after holidaying in Miami. He heard gun shots every night, and was pulled over by armed police and told to get out of the car at gunb point. But to be fair to the cops they did really appologies after relaising him and his 2 mates were English and on holiday.
All b.s. aside, we americans differ from you Britons in a very fundamental way; i.e., how we form our governments and how we view our governments.
In the U.K., your government is formed by "Divine Right" of the monarchy. That being, God gives your monarchy the right to rule and to form the government. I realize this concept has been constitutionally modified by the Magna Carta, but the fundamental formulation still remains.
In the USA, it is "We the People" who form the government. We, in effect, loan the power to govern us to the elected officials with the literal and written understanding that we are self governed and can take back the means of governing should we desire.
That is the theoretical principal by which our Founding Fathers came up with the means of setting up our government. In their collective genius, these revolutionaries, came up with a practical method to effect the theory, the second amendment! Which, clearly and undeniably, grant us the RIGHT to bear arms. Not for hunting, not for target practice and not for collecting, but for defending our right to govern ourselves and protect us from a tyrannical government!
Sorry, this concept evades you. I do not personally own a gun. I have never hunted but I will defend any law abiding citizen of my country to own one. Remember, the right to bear arms follows directly behind our most cherished right of free speech. So, please stop looking down your nose at our form of government. It still works fine for us and I don't know anyone here in the USA who would trade it for a monarchy!
Your view is very outdated. There is no *divine right* of Government etc. The Monarch is nothing but a figure head and the government is elected on a regional basis.
The US seems to have the view that the Queen wanders around telling everyone what to do. This is simply not the case anymore (Hasn't been for a f**k of a long time. The last monarch to even *approach* that kind of power was Victoria.)
Now, the Royal Family is nothing more than an expensive tourist attreaction.
We are governed by an elected body *by* the people!
But thanks for keeping this civil !!!
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Mmmm.. que american national anthem.. que stars and stripes.. que general S. Patten, que complete and utter indifference from the rest of the world.. who weren't made to worship the idolitry of the state in schools. Who can actually think for themselves.
Hardly. People here can and do think for themselves. But we do have a right to be ourselves and that means that we don't want Brits trying to use moral pressure to dictate the laws and social policies here.
Besides which, you've a long way to go before you have anything to teach us. That bombing in Soho last week being a case in point.
What I'd dearly love to know is why there are so many folks out there who want to stamp everyone from the same cookie cutter. If I'd wanted to live like a Brit with the same restrictions that come from living there, I'd have packed my family up and established residence there. Instead, I choose to live where I do and enjoy the rights, responsibilities and even the drawbacks of that decision.
Permit me to offer you a thought. Laws don't work unless they represent a moral consensus among those whom are to be governed by them. Gun control wouldn't work here because there are enough people who oppose those kinds of laws to make them unenforcable. Police only work when there's a moral consensus and violations constitute a statistical aberration. A lot of the whining that I see are from people and politicians who can't make their writ run in their own back yards, so they try and impose it on everyone else. Weird, to say the least,..........
Maybe, but its not exactly approved of by your government. Who seems to want a nation of unquestioning, flag worshipping patriots.
If thats what you think we're doing here.. your gravely mistaken. No-one here said anything about changing America.. all we did was point out a few quirks in your society. I seem to remember things hotting up when an american poster started getting all hoy palloy.. couldn't accept that there country was less than perfect.. started making comparisons with our culture.. got annoyed when we mentioned firearms bans being a good idea.. its this sort of oversensitivity that suggests to me that the US knows damn well that it should never have got the firearms situation in such a mess to begin with, but the 'cowboy mentality' that seems integral to US traditional culture never woke up an smelled the proverbial cofee in time... ah well..
I suspect more people in the US die (even as a population percentage) from gun related incidents every day as did in the Soho bombing. I'm not saying it wasn't a tragedy, because it was, but as far as unnessesary deaths of innocent people are concerned.. you are miles ahead. As for teaching you (I assume you mean the US).. well history seems to indicate things started going wrong after you stopped listening.
Good for you.. so whats the problem?
Doesn;t stop them trying.. take the illegal drugs problem. Also, by banning weapons, you'd limit there availability by standard means..
I think its been discussed over and over how the US gun problem has a deep, cultural basis. We're all quite aware of that.. it doesn;t make any difference to the argument though.
Maybe they just think it might be the only option remaining in a culture thats tearing itself asunder by being hysterical about crime, personal freedom, child wellfare *and* the notion that guns are "good" things and should be treated a bit like the arcwelder in the garage.
Very true. More people die in the US as a result of violent crime in one day than in the UK in a year. Given that their population is only 5 times that of the UK that's a pretty sad statistic seeing as a significant proportion of the US deaths are though guns.
Actually, they're fascists. (Fascism defined is a system that allows for the private raising of capital and private profit, but industrial policy is subordinated to the government.) The only real debate in this country anymore is whether it's going to be the European Model where government calls the shots or whether it's going to be more of a Japanese model mixed economy.
The concept of a flag waving patriot is an oxymoron in this issue.
You haven't been following the activities of the British-American Security Council, the Japanese, the Canadians or curiously enough the Columbians in the UN Disarmament Commission as far as interference in US Constitutional law goes.
And no, I don't buy the premise that we all know that we shouldn't have gotten into this firearms situation to begin with. Aside from sharing a common language, our situations and our histories are quite different.
No, and from what I've seen, the crime rate in the UK is getting worse, not better. It's interesting to note that in Australia after the ban, the rate of violent crimes went up, not down. Even without guns, our murder rate would exceed yours because within this culture, the use of violence to settle disputes is an accepted norm.
In the meantime, I notice with some dismay that your police are increasingly arming themselves. And it pays to remember that there seems to be a lot of Bulgarian Makarovs floating around in your country these days. It's funny. Back when I was in the Army, if you wanted a gun off the black market, one acquired one of those Walther PP or PPK copies that were made in small shops in Turkey, (and very well made they were too) and Germany was awash with them. I'm kinda sorry those small shops got put out of business by the Bulgarians.
And with the rise of the European Union and the steady decline in customs enforcement, the number of guns in the UK is steadily rising, Snowdrop campaign or no. And it's more dangerous there because the only people who are armed are those who break the law.
The problem is that some of your politicians are trying hard to homogenize the world so that we have to be stamped with your particular cookie cutter.
No, actually it would increase the number of methods by which people kill each other. Nobody used a gun at OKC, nobody used a gun at Atlanta and there were far more bombs used than guns at Columbine. And that doesn't include cases like Pricilla Ford's and the recent attack on a daycare center where the weapon of choice is an automobile.
There are other historical examples too. For example, have you ever thought about where martial arts weapons came from?
In Okinawa, the local prince banned the possession of swords and armor and assumed that his population would therefore be peaceful and tractible. Instead, they developed both martial arts and some new weapons. Nunchuks were originally an appliance for pounding rice into flour. A quarterstaff was originally for balancing two baskets at the shoulder and sai were originally for making holes in the ground for planting rice. So much for disarmament.
A similar situation arose in Japan after the Tokagawa Shogunate decided to disarm the local population. It took some 200 years of war to succeed in it, and in the meantime both martial arts again and ninjitsu found their greatest expression. The situation was so uncontrollable that the Samurai wound up sticking to using swords on each other while finding that they needed to resort to matchlocks to put the local population down.
And that doesn't include that NYC social club fire that was set by a loser with girlfriend problems, a can of petrol and a book of matches that killed over 80, or the steadily increasing attempts of other idiots to screw around with such fun things as Anthrax. (Damned shame I can't get Porton Down to give them a guided tour of Gruinard-- without the impermeable overgarmets and gas mask.)
And of course there's AUM Shinrikio and the Toyko subway nerve gas attack.
Guns are the lazy man's way out. Take those away, and they'll start killing with something else, and often those something elses are far worse. I shudder to think of what might have happened if those Fuel Air Explosives that Harris and Klebold tried using at Columbine had worked.
And it pays to remember that your government can't be trusted anymore than ours can. Those stories of the death squad tactics being used in Northern Ireland by SAS and RUC are something that I'm not prepared to tolerate here. An armed citizenry goes a long way towards moderating such behavior on the part of government.
No it doesn't, beyond creating yet another reason to further erode the rest of the Bill of Rights on the one hand, and increasing the tension between the Federal Government and the citizenry on the other. AP ran an honest poll recently in which they asked the respondents whether they thought new gun controls would prevent the reoccurance of situations like Columbine. Only ten percent responded affirmatively.
I don't run into too many people who are actually "hysterical" about crime and most of those are from places where it's illegal to defend onself like NYC. Here in Reno, crime is at best, a secondary issue.
People are more interested in other things like the tax increase to depress the railroad tracks downtown.
I live in a place where there are more guns than people. I feel perfectly safe if I pull over to assist a motorist who's broken down. Across the border in California, where it's illegal to keep a gun in one's vehicle, the last time I pulled over to change a tire for a lady, she was afraid that I was going to do something harmful to her, and when she discovered that I really was going to change the tire, she informed me that she thought that I was insane for doing so.
Over here on this side of the Sierra, roadside rapes and robberies and carjackings are uncommon enough that it makes news. Over there, it's so uncommon that it's unworthy of note. The big difference is that here people are armed.
The British try to make the world a cookie cutter??? no no my dear child... Globalization is upon us, and it is the American Values that seem to be (sadly) spreading the fastest.
I guess it pays to have a billion dollar propaganda machine.
Bear in mind that you're posting to alt.gothic (an international newsgroup), alt.tv.southpark (another) and uk.people.gothic (a uk- specific one).
Brits aren't "trying to use moral pressure to dictate the laws & social policies here" if by "here" you mean the US. You're not posting on a US-specific forum. Rather, people of a number of nationalities are having an *international* discussion about gun control. A recipe for a flamewar, perhaps, but hardly on a par with a load of Brits lobbying your Congress or something.
We vote our government in we have elections. We have one advantage that you don't We have more than two parites we are not told we have to vote for one or the other.
I
Carta, but
NO.
effect, loan
written
governing
How to you go about that. We can have a vote of no confidence in the governemt too.
defending our
You mean your own govenrment?, that you vote in and can remove.
never
one. How aboutn the prospective murder does he have that right too. Youi do have more deaths related to guns in the USA than you do in the UK aparently you're 71 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the USA than the UK does that make you feel free?.
Doesn't that refer to against your emimies and not agaiunst your fellow countrymen?.
It's not the govenrment, who votes the govenrment in
well our monachy isn't hated as much as your govenment... How many times is it not that your leaders have been shot at? compare it to how many times our Queen has been shot at?
How many people have the US govenrment killed to cover up the clinton scandle?
Vicki replies Doe you really believe having once commited a crime like murder that our laws allow him to own a gun? See, you ae ignore of our laws in the regard. anyone convicted of a felon cannot own a gun.
than
Vicki repiles Yes, it is only natural to have mpore deaths due to guns as we are allowed to have them. So,tell me how do the brits kill someone?
I had to say that, with whatever one has available, of course. Someone bent on killing, someone with no regard for human life is not going to be stopped from harming people. I blame the court system. It is SUPPOSE to protect us from these people...but the judicial system for the most part really doesn't do that anymore...neither is punishment dealt swifty...it gets dragged out for years and years and years...even when their was NO DOUBT to ones guilt. This is where, as far as i am concerned, they have contributed to the lack of fear of punishment...reprisal.
for instance i recall of an incident where a thief actually got away with sueing the owner of a place buisness when he was injured attempting to break into his place and rob him...and he won...this is a travesty of the justice system and a mockery of it. it heaps scorn on it....and disgust from the people in general after a while.
I think you mis-understood my question. I asked about prospective murders not someone that has commited a previous crime.
UK
allowed
That's not to high on our agenda actualy. I guess the most common way is from knives. (or slicing them up with sarcasim) Which are mostly illegal. (knives that is)
Agreed but I tend to think that someone that is likely to wish to harm someone via whatever method also tends to carry their weapon of choice around with them, remove that weapon and the person is a lot less likely to try an attack in the first place.
years
Yep, agreed.
Agreed again, but just think of how much he could have sued for if the had been shot at and injured.
Hardly at all !! And it can't be because of the inavailability of guns making it less likely anyone will attempt an assasination because that would suggest (shock horror) that your more likely to get shot in a country with liberal gun laws.. wich we all know can;t be true because Charlton bloody Heston (personally I preffered him in Moses) says otherwise. And besides, John Wayne had a gun so it must be OK.. he's more american than Apple pie..
"In the U.K., your government is formed by "Divine Right" of the monarchy. That being, God gives your monarchy the right to rule and to form the government."
Perhaps this gentleman's' perception was just a *leeettle* off the mark...
I understand the UK to be a parliamentary monarchy, so what Peter says is correct to a point. His crime, it would appear is to massively misjudge the relative importance of the crown in government; the UK is easily as democratic as the USA (more so, in all probability - but that's a different argument), but it seems many Americans just don't (or won't) understand this rather fundamental point...
I don't think calling Mr Harvey a "stupid shit" helps though.
Anyway you can always plead insanity.. hell this is usenet, you could plead a bad day or even just say you forgot the smiley.. thats what everyone else seems to do.
Because there is a large market for and trade in guns. But that doesn't equate to a big market for manufacturers here, since guns are a durable good and are traded as well as manufactured and sold. For example, my big hobby, aside from the guns that I use for work, is 1000 meter service rifle shooting. My gun of choice for that is a 1937 vintage Sako M28-30 which to save you a trip to the library, is a Finnish Mosin-Nagant action which was used in the Winter and Continuation wars. (Lt. Olavi Elo won the 1938 International Army Rifle Championships with it's twin, making a world record of 530 points.) Nobody has manufactured one of these for a very long time.
People tend to trade in guns that they're no longer interested in when they buy new ones, and the profit margins for those who sell new firearms tends to be pretty thin, around ten percent. For example, when I went to a semiauto for work, my old service revolver went in as a trade and some cash deal since I wasn't going to use it as a hobby gun and I don't like revolvers all that much anyway. (A single action semiauto is more accurate and it reduces the chance of hitting something that I don't intend to shoot if I ever actually have to drop a hammer on somebody.)
A lot of that gets manufactured, but a lot of it tends to sit and not get fired because the guns that they go to are home defense weapons that sit awaiting situations that we'd all prefer to avoid, and are never fired.
Well lets see. It's not a matter of need, its a matter of an enumerated right, but that said, lets break it down. There's the weapon that my wife uses to defend herself and my children with if somebody gets past my dogs when I'm not home. Then there are the weapons that I use at work, which is a semiautomatic pistol and a 12ga riot gun. (Doing armed alarm response and searching hot alarms alone at O'Dark Thirty is a pucker factor enhancing experience.) Then there's the rifle that I do thousand meter shoots with, the rifle that I hunt deer with and the shotgun that I use for duck hunting. Now none of those really interchange as far as function goes. Using my 1,000 meter rifle for hunting ducks for example, is a little like trying to use a hammer to flip hamburger patties in a skillet. And there's no way that it would work well for searching buildings for burglars either.
It's a notice that your government uses to stop publication of information by claiming that it's covered by your "Official Secrets Act". Try that here and you'd find your political career at an end.
So? You may not like it, but it's a right, it's percieved by the public as one and it's one that we're not going to give up.
There's a lot of truth in that old joke about America and England being two peoples separated by a common language. The cultures are rather different and I've long been amazed by the things that you folks are prepared to tolerate from your government.
We have a right to be different. That's what this country is all about, and that means that demands from overseas that we change to fit their definition of civil order are extremely unwelcome. I, for example, don't go telling the Brits how to live, even though I frankly think that they're a bit odd.
The enumerated right under the Second Amendment, and the tradition of an armed citizenry which goes back to colonial times and even back to old England when you depended on an armed Yeomanry for your defense.
So? You assume that killing is universally wrong. It's not. For example, if someone tries raping your wife, is she not justified in killing her attacker if she can? Or are you arguing that people must suffer any outrage, rather than use lethal force to not be a victim?
So, there's nothing wrong with people protecting themselves unless you're prepared to argue that you'd rather mandate that they be passive victims, and I'm not prepared to engage in that kind of moral cannibalism. I've seen far too many victims to ask anybody to do that.
It's bad enough over here that the banks publish safety tips for those who employ them for after hours banking, and the walk up variety is fast becoming a thing of the past. Drive up ATMs are a little safer, and when new banks are being built, the drive up variety are what's going in.
Those two guys thought that they had an easy mark until they suddenly saw that Beretta.
Northwestern University did a study using data from your Home Office and the FBI's Unified Crime Report some years ago. The figure is surprizingly persistant and Canada shows a like preponderance of invasions of occupied dwellings.
It does, so there's a land office business in gun safes too, and lots of people build hidden storage in their homes as well.
And when you eliminate guns, you get substitution of weapons and deaths anyway. For example, there's that lovely case of that pub in Soho last week where you had what, three dead and a whole bunch of people wounded?
Let me point something out here. In most of the places that I ever have been, where there's gun control you find a lot of folks using bombs and that actually increases the casualty rate per incident. Why?
Lets look at the characteristics of the weapons. First, a gun is a single vector weapon. It sends a bullet from point a to point b. When you fire it, it tends to be a one shot to a customer item. And you have to aim it in order to hit anything. It fires a projectile which tends to have a low coefficient of resistance and it's stable so it makes a regular wound track when it strikes it's target, which means that assuming that the victim isn't killed outright, that the wounds are managable and he has a fair chance of survival.
Furthermore, if somebody starts shooting, you have some chance to either bug out or get behind cover, which means that something like a drive by shooting is survivable.
Not so with bombs. Bombs are omnidirectional. They send many fragments out at once. The fragments are irregularly shaped and therefore have a high coefficient of resistance and being unstable, have an irregular wound track which means that they're not only less survivable but if you do live, the damage is far worse. (Ever seen somebody with a football scar? It's a vertical incision from sternum to pelvis. Bomb victims get those, because what the doctors do is to open you up, stretch out your guts and then finger them through like you do when looking for ticks on a dog. About 40 percent die on the table.)
Those fragments also tend to have more kinetic energy than a bullet does because they're propelled by explosives not gun propellants, and that makes the damage, particularly hydrostatic shock induced trauma still worse. And because multiple strikes are the norm here, the effectiveness is calculated as the number of fragments hitting squared, so being anywhere near one of those things isn't conducive to a long life.
And bombers are becoming increasingly sophisticated. They're building claymores and fuel air explosives now and those are frightening. You have absolutely no chance of surviving either. And the two lost souls who did the killings at Columbine were trying to use fuel air explosives, so they're worth looking at in some detail here.
A typical wood frame building will be destroyed at a 5psi overpressure. Reinforced concrete will go at 25 to 50 psi. A conventionally built aluminum aircraft using semimoncoque construction will go at around 2.5 psi.
Human beings die at around 40 psi.
A fuel air explosive produces blast overpressures of 200 psi, and that's what Harris and Klebold had set up at their school. Of the 50 some odd bombs recovered, seven of them were FAEs.
Their surviving classmates are damned lucky. If those two had paid more attention to the quality of their bombs and left their guns at home, they could have killed 200-300 people instead of 13.
And that's not the worst mass murder in recent US history either. The worst was at a social club in New York City a few years ago. Some loser with girlfriend problems, a can of gasoline, (that's petrol to you) a book of matches and a rag killed over 80.
More people would have lived had he used a gun,...........
You're being silly here. First off, tell me how effective your army has been in eradicating the IRA. Take all the pages you need. Urban guerilla wars tend to be pistol and icepick wars.
Secondly, we do have a lot of people with rifles and shotguns, and there's no way that the Feds have the manpower or the money to garrison the country against it's own inhabitants.
Funny thing, but the Swiss did use those to convince old Adolph that he needed to go pick on somebody else. <Chuckle>
The Viet Cong managed to beat the crap out of us. The Afghans went a long way towards breaking the Soviet economy. And notice that the Russians ain't exactly exercising sovereignty over the Chechens at the moment.
The Navy doesn't operate a lot of ships here in town. Aircraft have to have a target, which guerillas don't offer. And the Feds need our economy to leech off of, so they're not going to bomb the infrastructure back into the stone age because then they get to starve too. And helicopters are so easy to shoot down, that once upon a time, a fellow named Craig Estabrook in a mainstream media outlet called Atlantic Monthly, wrote a nice article called "All Aboard Air Oblivion".
<Chuckle> Actually it had two effects. First off, it caused the Feds to set up an organization called Handgun Control Inc. It was started by a CIA agent named Edwin Welles, who'd originally learned his trade with the OSS in Europe, where he was a street agent. The workaday weapons of civilian resistance movements are pistols, and at the time the Feds were rather worried about one rising here.
Secondly, it did contribute to ending the war. Here's a history lesson for you.
After the Weathermen's Days of Rage, the late J.Edgar Hoover decided to go after their spokesman Bernadine Dorn. In order to do this, they decided to establish long term deep cover operatives in the dissident communities. One of these was an agent named Cril Payne, (currently a member of the Texas Bar) who was assigned to an undercover unit in Ventura California called "The Beards". (They were running a wholly FBI staffed dissident group at the time called The November Committee, which was an attempt at lateral penetration of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which was an outfit that scared Hoover to death, and with good reason.)
Payne did indeed go underground and while he wasn't ever successful at catching Ms Dorn, he did collect a lot of really useful sociological information about the Weather Underground. The most important things that he learned was that first, the command structure of the Weathermen was matriarchal and that most of the real thinkers and leaders were women who happened to be radical feminists, (or what passed for it at the time) and that most of the men were there in opposition to the draft.
When Payne came in out of the cold, he was debriefed by his case officers who in turn briefed Acting Director L. Patrick Gray. Gray, in turn, briefed President Nixon. And while everyone else was trying to figure out how to garrison the country against it's own inhabitants while putting down a domestic insurgency, Nixon solved the problem.
How did he do this? He removed the causus belli.
First off, he eliminated the draft. Secondly, he started Vietnamization and the pullout from the country. Third, he offered the Equal Rights Amendment (which I did vote for, BTW) which forced those same radical feminists to be co-opted by the political system that they were trying to overthrow, and that in turn gutted the Weather Underground, which eventually faded into obscurity.
Nixon wouldn't and couldn't have done any of that, had he not been facing armed opposition with more than enough capacity to raise merry hell.
No, but they did decide that military operations in CONUS was a non-starter. Back when I was in high school, my old ROTC instructor told me about one of his experiences after World War 2. He had been one of General Yamashita's guards before he'd gotten hanged after the Manilla War Crimes Trial. Anyway, my old Sergeant asked him why they didn't invade the west coast when they had a chance. Yamashita chided him for having so little faith in his own fellow Citizens and stated that it was a non-starter because everybody and his brother had a gun.
And it does pay to remember that they didn't follow up the destruction of the Pacific Fleet with a ground invasion even though they had the capacity to do so. And it also pays to remember that there was some real, justifiable worry at that time about a land invasion.
Have some fun and look at a Fuller Projection map, instead of the usual Mercator one. It's a short jump from Japan to the Kuriles to the Alutians (sp) to Alaska. Alaska had a low population density so invasion would have be pretty simple for the Japanese. And with bases in Alaska, they could have bombed important industrial facilities such as Boeing Seattle, Pacific Car and Foundry, (tank production) and most of the US Aluminum production.
Looks like those guns may have been useful after all,.............<Chuckle>
No, but then I know a little more about unconventional war than you appear to and also I know a whole lot more about the limitations that heavy weapons units have in fighting in urbanized terrain. (Back in the paleolithic when I was in the Army, my original job was as an Armor Crewman. Commanding a tank in an urban setting is not conducive to a long life, when there are people in town who want to kill you.)
Perhaps you should make a small visit to the library and read John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government.
No, it would have been worse because they'd have concentrated on doing a better job with the bombs that they built. Whenever I think of what they could have done with a couple of home-made bursting charges and two or three two gallon cans of gasoline, I'm happy that they took the lazy man's way out. 13 dead victims was horrible enough. The number that they could have gotten with fuel air explosives or exploding incendiaries would have been much, much worse.
First off, those kids weren't goths. (Wearing black doesn't make you a goth. Otherwise, I'd be classified as one. So would my favorite CW artist, Johnny Cash. <Chuckle>) One of the big problems here is that the media tries hard to put a label on everything and everyone. When they do that, they do great violence to the truth. And they did in this case.
Secondly, it still amazes me that we're not surprized when a dog which is beaten and abused will turn on it's owner and attack, but we are when we allow somebody to be ostracized, beaten and insulted to the point of insanity and then they lash out at their tormentors.
The problems with those kids weren't that they were Goths, or that they had access to guns. The problem is that we handed them a shake & bake social structure which created in-groups and whenever you create an in-group, you create out groups as well. Isolate, shun abuse and insult and you create hatred. And hatred was the cause of the killings.
And if the teachers and administrators had actually exercised some control over that school, including a zero tolerance policy for the kinds of attacks that those kids suffered, then 15 people would still be alive and you and I wouldn't be discussing this. And I wouldn't be worried about how my son is treated in school right now.
<Chuckle> Tell it to those poor dead souls who were burned to death in that social club fire. One unstable person with a can of gasoline. Or one unstable person with a bomb. Or take a lady who's currently on death row here named Pricilla Ford. One fine Thanksgiving day, she got 24 people on a sidewalk in front of Circus Circus downtown with a Lincoln Continental.
The real issue is a stable community and not weapons. Mrs Ford didn't even own a gun.
Nobody was talking about sending in infantry, and the Federal Government doesn't need the Iranian economy to leech off of, so nobody would have cared if we bombed their civil infrastructure into dust.
<Chuckle> It depends. How badly do the wolves want to risk being the one wolf that the sheep actually manage to shoot?
When it makes me less likely to rise above being lazy and build bombs and incendaries or using a Lincoln Continental like Ms Ford did.
And establishing a kind of deterrence tends to reduce the kind of situations where I might find it desirable to be a threat. Nobody bothers me, so I don't have a lot of reason to get emotionally worked up about being mistreated.
No, I just like eating vennison and wild duck. Sage hen and chukkar are good eating too.
Well, lets see, there's the research work done by Gary Kleck at Florida State and John Lott's studies which are pretty well done and a little bit more believable than Arthur Kellerman's stuff.
Also there's my own experience. As a civilian and not in a job connected capacity, over the last 30 years or so, I've drawn three times. The first was to chase a burglar from my home. The second and third were street robberies, the first by two armed assailants and the second by two who seem to have been intent on strong arm robbery. I didn't have to kill anyone in any of those three instances. They saw the gun and lost no time in making a speedy exit, and yet, I'm morally convinced that I'd have been seriously injured or killed had I not have been armed. Sitting atop my toolbox, is a steel crowbar. (What you call a prybar.) It belonged to the burglar that I chased off. He dropped it and ran, and I scored a crowbar out of the deal. Had I have not had a pistol in my hand, I can easily see that bar being wrapped around my head-- with lethal results. (I've used that bar to change many an alternator in my various cars over the years, and I've thought about that first incident often.)
No, and the answers are there-- provided that you're willing to rise above what you think that you know and learn something new.
Something to do with guns being made cheaper elsewhere I guess.
Which would imply that nobody has been recently killed by one either.
Not bad, food is around 2%, same as computers and electrical good. I know there's a greater turnover but.....
So is there a physical difference between thsoe guns used to comit a crime and those guns used for home defence?.
where
here
You mean like Clinton and his sex career, who did kill JFK? Why can't I find Area 51
public
Is it this one: Section 8 Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It says nothing about arming everyone for none military aims.
being
Like what? (I know we do, but are you any better off) Lets see 227 kids died in 1991 because of the love of the constitiontion.
about,
Well I likew the idea of walking the streets without have to carry a gun to protect myself.
The USA has told the UK that we must buy GM food from the USA or they'll price us out of the market.
In the past taxi drivers have a right (in the UK) to piss up their rear wheel. But times change and you know amendments change too. They ARE NOT written in stone.
No.
The law is resonable force (unfortunalty) It is wrong to kill aperson because they're wearing the wrong col,our bandann or whatevery, or to kill someone because thewy have more money in their pocket than you do.
Is that what the 2 Trench coats would be able to plead?
I agree to that completely but until I see statsistics that prove that more CRIMINALS die from gun use than inocent victims do I still fail to so the "give guns to everyone senerio" How does a gun sulllpier know what he's customer will use it for.. Oh sorry he askes. Southpark: Do you want a gun for Home defense, hunting or other.......
those
Why, could it be that you may get shot at.
That wouldn't be practical in the UK.
and
Well from what I read in the local papers it is relatively rare for a home to be burgulred when the occupants are at home, unless they are old people. I'm talking of the blind or deaf or wheel chair bound not the sort of people that could handle a gun.
deaths
deaths
week
Yes a mail bomb made from shotgun cartridges........ 3 dead... better than 15 in colorado. I'd rather be on that street than out that school, the odds along would be in my favour. And that's the same street as my favourite off licence (liquer store) Now that is scary.
have
Bacause it's harder to target who you want to kill, less accurate. You can also be further from the scene of the crime. Easy of aquiring, cheapness.
Like the 15 in coloarado.
either
So they're OK?
does
makes
And
calculated
But they have different uses, the aim of the bomb is to scar people far morem than having a gun. People remember bombs, if they see a lunchbox on the train it stops services for hours, that's what they are after or else they wouldn't give out warnings.
And where do you think they are getting the elements from....... and how do they know about them.....
the
<interesting but not overly importent>
So you POV is as bombs are more dangerous than guns let them have guns, So how about nuclear weapons are more dnagerous than bombs so let than have bombs. Or Quantum torpedos are more dangerous than nuclear weapons so let them have nuclear weapons.
My preffered option would be : Guns are more dnagerous than knives so let them have knives. Knives are more dangerous than rocks so let them have rocks. Rocks are more dangerous than a stick of wet celery so ginve then celery.
Maybe he would have quietly picked of 100 or more given the right gun. Give him a stick or wet celery and.........
You can't erradicate it as such but it has gone more peacefully political, which would have happened much soon if the USA wouldn't have been so eager to supply guns, ammo, bomb supplies, so called moral support, nnot forgetting finaince of course..
The IRA used a fair few bombs too. Anyay politacl wars are totally different....
Else I could talk about Veit N. how many died from guns there.
army.
No the Swiss were and always wanted to be seen as Neurtral. The Swiss also made deals with the Nazis to store much of the stolen Eurpoean art work and the a large protion of gold fillings and other personal items extracted from the Jews via the gas chambers totaling millions some which still hasn't been accounted for.
Look at swiss bank accounts the no questions asked ones. Do you think these accounts are opened by holding a gun to an assistants head?
Money is one of the few things that make more noise than guns.
Yep, it's a matter of scale.
lesson
All very interesting but not that relevent. We're not realy talking about organised groups with aims of world domination or whatever. I'm not talking of political aims or religous aims. I wouldn't expect you to tell me how a gun would have stoped the girl outside the Greek Embassy (London) setting fire to herself, or explaining how guns would have stopped Ghandi.
Only with societies at war though.
All your saying is that you had the bigger weapon and survived. Being in the right and having a gun aren't always enough.
Only because the idea of voilence to slove the problem is so readly understandable in the USA. Maybe they should be taught how to handle stress rather than how to handle a gun.
It could have been totaly avoided if the automatic response inbuilt from childhood was not to arm yourself to 'defend' yourself. They were defending themselves from the jocks weren't they, that was the reason behind the shooting, it wasn't because the were given coffee without sugar was it?.
and
a
Sorry about that I know but I was just using it as identification I did use 'trenchcoats but the same goes for them.
Exactly arming then isn't the answer.
Yes, but telling someone they have a right to defend themselves is one thing giving them the posibilitiy of killing those that they feel are oppressing them isn't. There must have been other avenues they copuld have gone down without using the default which was violence. In the UK goths and other minority groups get problems but we're not taught to look to guns as the solution, that's the difference surely.
Yep, but your answer seems to be that arming every kid in the school would stop that. I would say ban all weapons from school premises. But you may well say you can't because of the constition and I'd say amend it, it's been done many time before and can be done again.
It would take a lot of effort and be difficult but the other options.......
If he was in the UK I guess you'd be less worried about him being attacked and shot in school why would that be?.
named
in
It's all about limitation, how amny people a year get murdered by gun and how many by car. Find the ratios and ban the worst offenders. If 1,000 people were murdered using a car and there were 10,000 cars i.e 1 in 10 chnce of being murdered via a car, then I'd start thinking about banning cars......
I'd though it'd take more effort to build a bomb than pulling a trigger. Even I have some idea how to use a gun..... Don't you point the bit with the hole in it towards the target ;-)
Dunno how I'd build a bomb without researching in to it.
Well I guess it was one of her ancestors that built the first production car. ;-)
Poor animals don't they have rights under the constitition. :) I think you should arm them let them defend themselves. ;-)
Well I know about research, I've just bound 30 odd volumes on various electronic computer stuff. You say what your sponser wants to hear else you don't get your marks.
No, we call them crowbars too.
My friends were burgulard two weeks ago. A nieghbour chased him off without the aid of a crowbar, just knowing that he was seen was enough. No one needed a gun.
I still see the number of crimes commited using a gun is directly propotional to the number of innocent deaths they cause. Until I see proof than leeting anyoine have guns that's wants them cut's down gun relalted crime... I'll stick to my guns as they say ;-)
Although, after having read your woefully misinformed response to one of the most patient and well thought-out posts I've come across in quite some time, it may do very little good, here's a link which will provide sufficient information (at least to those who don't out-of-hand dismiss statistically valid scientific studies because their conclusions aren't in accordance with preconceived notions) in answer to your request. http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm
I don't really want to join in, but I can answer a few of these...
Because virtually anyone (or so it seems from every state I've visited) with a retail license can, no matter what else they sell, also vend cigarettes. And nearly everyone (including US equivalents to Boots, Superdrug, and Argos) does. Selling guns requires special licensing for the establishment (though this varies state to state). If selling cigarettes were as heavily regulated, and banned from places that also sell alcohol, you'd see a lot more exclusively tobacco shops. In North Carolina, for example, spirits can only be sold from state-run liquor shops, so you notice a lot of them. Not so in other states where a license to sell alcohol applies to spirits as well as beer and wine.
Doesn't need replacing if it's properly maintained and of reasonable quality to begin with. A properly maintained quality firearm will last more than a lifetime, as will a good old SLR camera. VEry few people are actually dependant on having the latest, most-advanced version of either.
If I'm a hunter of a variety of different animals, then I'm probably going to want a 12ga shotgun for big game, though it's heavy and costly and in some cases may break my shoulder if I hold it wrong. I'm going to want a smaller gauge for smaller game so I can move easier, not break my shoulder, and not completely destory the little bird or rabbit I intend to eat. And if I decide that as long as I'm at it I might as well keep a handgun for home protection, that's a third. If I'm just learning to use a gun, or have a child I wish to instruct, it will be better to learn with a .22 rifle or pistol--which I might also want for informal or competetive target shooting.
Yes, what is a "D" notice?
It may be worth noting that, unless you want to count teh 13th, 15th, and 19th ammendments as restricting the previously legal right to own slaves and discriminate on the basis of race and sex, that ammendments to the constitution that outlaw previously legal activity have been a total failure--ie the 18th.
No, but for a short time in the 1960's the well-armed and disciplined Black Panther Party mounted an effective resistance against systematic police oppression in urban ghettos. At the time violent and racist police officers were (by superiors and courts that didn't care) given the power to use the residents as their own personal puching bags and practice targets--later deterred by the threat of an armed citizenry. I don't doubt that the situation exists to a lesser degree today. By telling the US as a whole to give up their privately owned guns you are, in fact, telling a lot of people not only to trust the police to protect them but trust them not to oppress them. And a lot of these people are still old enough to remember when the police seemed like little more than the KKK in blue.
It doesn't. It makes the other guy less of a threat.
The good thing is that there are many, many Americans who are *not* traken in by the NRA paranoia brigade. (Even taking side against that icon of US-ness Charlton Heston..)
Where in the states is it *mandatory* to carry a gun? (Somewhere where it is compulsory to carry weapons!! Hey, We'd all *love* to live there huh!?)
Peter Harvey wrote in message ...
the
is
And what tyrannical government do you think an untrained minority of militia groups could hope to conquer?
The constitution was set in place against the british government at the time. It was never intended to be a permanent document.
and
Strange that, I have heard from MANY americansd that they *welcome* a ban on guns, or at least much stricter laws. 'fraid you ain't taking for your country.
Can't remember the name, but the is at least one city (town?) that has it mandatory for all over 21's to carry a weapon. I studided it a few years ago...
43 states have concealed carry laws so it would be difficult to find a meaningful correlation here due to the lack of a sufficiently large control group.
Not particularly; considering how many lives are *saved* by defensive use of firearms.
For something "designed to kill" they don't seem all that dangerous from an accidental death standpoint, as compared to swimming pools and buckets of water. Of course, swimming pools and buckets of water don't evoke such Freudian dread from neurotic englishmen and urban american upper-class liberals either.
IX Corp. wrote in message news:7g86n7$lum$[email]...
the
That's the situation here in the UK, if you want to commit a crime (not a major crime) you don't need a gun.
<criminals>
They're tools IMO.
Well sorry about that but that's how it is in the UK now. And I relly don't think the Trenchcoat..... were planning on using them as a piecing accessory.
something
well I've seen it in the UK often enough especailly between cyclists and taxis.
cowboy
No more than you assuming evryone has a bowler had and brolly.
That's still 1% will (I realise you guestimated) 1% of 300 million odd, that's a lot of guns
handgun
are
Funny it's the opersite in the UK.
likely
I didn't realised SA was industrialised, and then these deaths only rocketed after they effectively left the commonwealth.
is
Here,
I still don't think only 227 is soemthing to be proud of I wonder what it was in the UK.
It's still 13 unlucky for some.
So.....
yet.
I'm less interested in supporting my postion than I am in getting facts. My c'puter crashed while reading the first page.
they're
So how comes citizens is the UK don't feel the need to be armed, and in most case niether do the police. Could it be that a criminal assume that he's victim will not be seriously armed so he won't need to be 'packing heat' to eliminated them?.
No thanks. :)
Well I heard it was becuase they carried more cash and didn't know the areas. If they stayed in the designated areas they'd be OK, so why don't the robbers change areas.?
OK understood my I.E won't send emails very easily. :-(
Because your vitims aren't armed and can't legally fight back. Easy times for the criminals.
Its someone getting so pissed they loose their head and do something overly rash.
South Africa has a separate set of issues. I doubt the people of Rhodesia were unhappy that they had weapons when SWAPO started their crap. I know landowners in SA are very happy they can still be armed. Banditry and robbery in SA is rampant.
How many drownings did you have? Drunk driving? Are you getting ready to ban swimming pools and public beaches? What about banning private ownership of motorcars and drinking?
Also your ban on guns hasn't stopped that hate group from Bombing in London has it? The criminally bent still get their work done.
You lads were really worried about it 50 years ago when you were staring across the channel at Hitlers Army. We (americans) gave you thousands of guns from our own collections to arm your civil defense while Fazakerly, BSA, Enfield and other factories churned out BREN guns, Enfields and Stens to equip his majesty's forces. It sure sucked when the BEF had to leave most of their kit back in france didn't it?
So... How's about this THIRD e-mail that the very disturbed IX troll sent me then?? see under the quote.......
Posted and sent to [email]
(I'd advise other's follow this example.)
IX Corp. wrote in message ...
Oooooo; are you gonna tell my MOMMMY!?!?!? You loathesome british scuzz bucket; no wonder the u.s. rules the remains of the british empire. You're lucky you're 6000 miles away, or I'd gouge out your eye socket and skull fuck you to death.
How typical of someone who desires to government to rule his life to attempt to nark out someone who uses language he doesn't approve of; I hope you enjoy your future fascist government.
Feel free to forward my messages to io.com, their upstream provider and the president of the fooking united states; none of them give a shit if I use you for my verbal punching bag, you rotten little lump of dogshit.
-Lupo "The close affinity of the 'beautiful' and the 'good' was most keenly felt and understood of all civilized nations by ancient Greece" -Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization
Sheesh! While no explicit threat is made here, the testosterone meter has just blown a diode through overload.
Yes, but you can't swing a bat or stab someone with much success at, say, 100m.
Not so much superstitious as ill-informed.
Well, the U$ has one of the highest gun crime rates in the so-called civilised world and has extremely lax gun laws. I've said it before and will, doubtless, say it again. THERE IS NO (i.e. zero, not an inverse, not a positive number) CORRELATION BETWEEN THE STRENGTH OF FIREARMS LAWS AND THE RATE OF GUN-RELATED CRIME. We should, perhaps, look to the cultural and social (verging on tautologous, but who cares?) forces at work where we have high rates of gun-related violence rather than blame access to firearms.
It is reasonably excusable, really. We are also exposed to what passes for television in the United States. Is it any wonder that we get our wires crossed?
Ah, yes. Carry a gun or you will be beaten or robbed or something. I think that this is a cultural force at work that leads to a heightened incidence of gun crime in the States. The most telling thing about carrying a firearm for "self defence" is that one must be prepared to use it, possibly to end someone else's life. I was once told by a Tae Kwon Do master that the best defence is a 20 yard start. This is something that I have taken to heart and will continue to adhere to for as long as it is practicable.
Isn't Freud the guy that suggested that most males subconsciously wish to sleep with their mother?
Yeah, he has a lot of credibility.
Mr Q. Z. D., who is (and forever shall remain) a pacifist.
----- "Now we see the violence inherent in the sysadmin!"
That Usenet post was not in the slightest 'abusive,' though I could arrange for the next one to be.
Exqueeze me? Ensure I do not what? WHat are you, some kind of tattle-taleing paranoid? Allow me to show you the direction you may fuck directly off too, putzboy.
There's a logical, solid, intelligent debate for you......
And one more name in the K/f... and a post to his ISP.......
Life... doncha just love it !?
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
No, I'm trying to tell the original poster that a police officer being killed in the US is highly covered, as opposed to his/her misconception that "it rarely even makes the papers."
I'd LOVE to think this would put it to rest, but I doubt it.....
Guns in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defense. Kellermann, A., New England Journal of Medicine, 1986
When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes. Kellermann, A., Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. Kellermann, A., New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold. New England Journal of Medicine, 1992
Why do I think guns should be banned???
You've just read it. And that is *Without* 'typical' murder figures.
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Well there's your problem right there! :-) I don't trust the gov't but I trust TV even less as a source of information.
even makes
Nah, it's huge news here if a cop gets shot, at least in the state where it happens (which is understandable, given that some of our states have more people than all of the UK, and most have more people than all of Scotland.)
They are still a fluke, although one which gets lots of attention. Students here are at least 100 times more likely to contract HIV than to die in a school massacre.
That's been true for 30 years, and the gangs have been extremely well-armed for 15 years.
government
are going
If you are going to challenge those statistics you need to come up with a better source of info than your intuitive grasp of the state of the US plus copious TV and movie watching.
happening.
And how many US cities have you walked through lately?
The fact is, crime is down here. It's dropping fast in my hometown of Richmond, and even faster in Florida, which, before gun laws were relaxed and prison sentences toughened, was looking to set new records for murders. Another place it's dropping fast is NYC, where you may say Guiliani (sp?) has trampled civil rights but you can't say his policy of having police actually enforce the law has failed to cut down on criminals. The cities where crime is still rising are ones like LA which have kept their lax parole rules and hamstrung their cops but enacted stronger and even more useless gun laws.
:IX Corp. wrote in message :news:7ft4jl$4af$[email]... :
: :Actually the answer is no. Crime and especially violent crime has been :decreasing since guns were banned in the UK. Your statistics include the years :before the banning if guns.
England has been slowly revoking the rights of it's subjects to protect themselves for years.
:
: :Bullshit. Certain parts of the US are now warzones where even the police won't :go. Violent crime is VERY much on the increase.
As someone else said:
You are simply wrong, both FBI statistics and state numbers prove you wrong, from the first sentence of the "Uniform Crime Reports" published by the FBI on December 19 1998 (this covers the period Jan-June 1998):
"The number of Crime Index offenses reported to law enforcement agencies throughout the United States decreased 5 percent during the first 6 months of 1998 when compared to the figures reported during the same period of 1997. The violent crimes of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault fell 7 percent, and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft dropped 5 percent."
In article , wrote: :IX Corp. wrote: :Teh question to be asked is not if gun crimes have been on the rise :since guns were banned (this is irrelevant) The RELEVANT question is :a)are gun crimes rising faster now than they were before they were :banned? and :b)Since banning guns, have gun crime rates been raising faster than in :countries (eg US) that havn't banned guns? : :I would suspect that the answer to both, is no.
You'd suspect wrong.
In this country the more law abiding people carry guns, the fewer violent crimes. 42 states have tried shall-issue concealed carry laws, and none have repealed them that I know of.
If you are _really_ interested in the truth, or at least an informed argument from the other side, try reading "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)" by John Lott.
excuse me, with all do respect, you live in the UK correct? so why do you have such an interest in our gun laws? right or wrong, we haven't outlawed personally owned firearms, and it is doubtful we will ever get a amendment proposed let alone the 2/3 vote necessary to amend our constitution on this subject. either way, you don't live here, so why does it matter to you?
by the by, (& please don't misconstrue this as meaning I care whether guns are legal in the UK) you write
While the gentleman you are responding to has posted reference to article written the past 2 years. Perhaps if you could come up with some reference of your own to support your apparent hypothesis that banning guns lowers violent crime rates?
I believe killing is wrong, too. But I don't believe that taking away all the guns of responsible, law-abiding gun owners is a way to curb it.
Not every American who owns a gun dreams him/herself to be Dirty Harry. Some of us just enjoy target shooting. And to take away that sport under a blanket gun law, to ban on the least common denominator, is poor practice.
I guess I'm confused about the UK ban, then - is it just handguns, or all arms? I saw someone else say that bolt-action rifles were still legal?
Cowboy Action Shooting also uses single-action revolvers (i.e. the Colt Peacemaker) with a 6-round cartridge - would those be illegal under the UK law?
I completely understand that viewpoint. But like I said before. I'd rather see every gunowner being a bit annoyed than have another innocent kid shot down in cold blood.
That really is all there is to it (From my viewpoint) But hey... Different strokes!
Thanks for keeping it civil. Other couldn't !
Cheers! Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
problem lies with the "they couldn't play nice, so we have to take everything away from everybody" idea. Because once it starts, it's a very hard slope to stop sliding down.
If the US did ban handguns, I've seen too much stupidity on this side of the pond to *not* believe that some group is going to look at that and go, "Well, we got guns banned, what's next? How about violent tv programs? That V-Chip isn't enough - those programs shouldn't even be MADE. And that music... that's evil and inciteful and it's got to go becasue a couple of kids whacked out over it. PEANUTS! Yeah, some kids have lethal allergies to peanuts so they can't manufacture or sell them anymore so no more innocent kids have to die form being near them."
It sounds outlandish and satirical. Unfortunately it isn't. Lyric labels, TV rating systems, peanut-free flights... all of which have been brought to the governments attention and all of which have been implemented in some form or another.
The US has a nasty tendency to try and get the government to take responsibility for the actions of the indiiduals, and if the individual is incapabile of acting responsibly, some folks want the government to step in and take control. I'm not one of those folks, as I have a modicum of personal responsibility and resent being "dumbed down" to the least common denominator in society.
Hopefully that clarifies my viewpoint on it somewhat, too.
Why is it so hard to understand that there may be a difference between an item which has a sole purpose of burying high-speed bits of lead in a creature and... ooohh... just about anything else you'd find in a modern, first-world home?
Why do the Americans need weapons? Who is currently invading them? Which of their borders are in dispute? Why do they all feel so frightened? Enquiring minds and all that bosh.
Because the *sole* purpose of a gun is *not* "burying high-speed bits of lead in a creature". This concept seems to keep evading your grasp, but I don't know how else to put it that I haven't already done so before.
Also, if that's the only thing you got out of the domino effect post that I had written, then there's nothing I can do there, either.
So what else is a gun designed to do? I don't remember seeing many AK-47s acting in Hollywood movies. When was the last time a Colt hand cannon asked if you wanted to sponsor it to run a marathon? I seem to remember lots of stories about these pesky little buggers going out and throwing the aforementioned lead pellets around the place but precious little on the amazing pop songs which are hitting the charts courtesy of "Walther and his Glocks" (sp?).
You are talking rubbish. If you wish to make a point, kindly attempt to illustrate it with a structured argument. Otherwise expect to be treated with the contempt I am now levelling at you.
Which of the two thousand posts I read yesterday would that have been?
The phrase "target shooting," which does not involve any living creatures, comes to mind here. As has been stated several times already.
The one you responded to, actually. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you either don't remember, or didn't read it in the first place.
Feel free to respond if you choose - I don't care. I know you aren't going to see any validity in my viewpoints, and I know I'm not going to be swayed towards yours, so there's really no point in continuing this since it's already degenerated into vulgarity, thus rational conversation is right out in favor of emotionalism.
I say that guns were not originally designed to shoots little rings on a bit of paper. I say that they were designed to kill people. You say yes or you say no?
Respond to my reply and I'll get on the case. In the meantime, I have a short term memory for things which are not important so forgive me for not hanging on your every word.
Your definition of vulgarity, perhaps. Someone (who wishes to stay the hell out of this thread, and I can't say I blame her) told me a truism earlier, prompted by your anger at my gratuitous usage of the word "fuck". Simply put, if someone resorts to expletives because they cannot form a coherent argument they're a world apart from someone who can debate effectively and uses language to spice up the prose.
So you now have two choices. Either tell me that I am incapable of forming a rational argument and thus *had* to swear in order to get my point across. Somehow, I don't think you're going to get very far with that one (egotistical, yes, but forgive me for believing in what I write). Or else admit that my arguments are actually well constructed and you simply wish to censor me in order to avoid having to deal with the situation.
So, which is it? A or B? Come on, Tirya. We're all dying to know!
I've often wondered about this sport, OK it's fun hitting the centre of a target, but why not use a bow and arrow where there's actually more skill involved, not only in aiming but in setting the tention and therefor distance the arrow travel.
Is there really much control when using a gun in target shooting.
Yes indeed. And the comparison for the sheer thrill of the sport is probably akin to riding a bicycle vs riding a motorcycle. (best I could come up with)
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:09:36 +0100, "Whisky Dave" wrote:
Having done both, I don't agree that one requires more skill than the other. True, archery involves the added complications you mentioned, but that's why target shooting with guns tends to use *far* smaller targets. Also in archery you need to control your breathing to shoot accurately, but with a gun you must control your heartbeat as well.
Besides which, as in many sports it's not how much skill is *needed* that is important, but how much you can improve your own skill and/or how your level of skill compares to those of your peers.
not "what else", but what. that isn't the purpose of a gun at all. if it were, then whenever there were no "creatures" around, a gun would cease to work. but i can shoot it at a wall, or a car, or a tree or a rock. get it?
which is nothing but arrogance since your "guns just kill creatures" theory is absurd at best.
nope. Sorry. My overworked brain can't quite figure out how you made that exceptional leap of logic. Let me try to talk it through and you can tell me where I'm going wrong.
I say guns are designed to shoot living things. I didn't say that was all that they were used for, in the same way that I will not say that cars are only used for commuting. To my mind, I can see no other use for a designing a high velocity, mini-projectile, ballistic machine.
You say that the above is not the purpose of a gun.
You then say that, this being the case, guns do not work when there are no creatures around.
Now, ignoring the possibility that you meant that guns will not fire if there are no humans present to pull the trigger (which, you'll be pleased to hear, I agree with) I will have to say that you're "going off on one". Calm down, take a deep breath and then go and learn how to construct a proper argument, you dolt.
And I can drive a car into a river. However, a car is not a boat and a gun is not a sledge-hammer. So what?
I didn't say that guns "just kill creatures". I said that they were designed to do this. As anyone who has watched "The Sweeney", or "Starsky and Hutch" will tell you, guns can also be used to shoot tires, engine blocks, petrol tankers or low-flying aircraft. They weren't *designed* to do this but they *can*.
[email] wrote: "Because the *sole* purpose of a gun is *not* "burying high-speed bits of lead in a creature"."
and you responded with the question we see above. which implies you are saying "the sole perpose of a gun *is* burying high-speed bits of lead in a creature"
i simply pointed out that a gun is, in fact, to send the lead flying. what it's aimed at has nothing whatever to do with the gun's design.
you mis-read it. what i said was a gun will _STILL_ work even if there are no creatures around for it to bury the lead into.
calm down, take a deep breath and then go learn to read, you twit.
[the above added simply for amusement since you're being so jumpy despite the fact that you're the one who's been misreading all this. it is not a flame, it's a joke.]
no. a gun's design has fuck all to do with that at which the gun is aimed. a gun is designed to make bullets go fast. ^ to use your own comparison, your statement about a gun's design is the same as saying "a car is designed to bring home groceries".
it's not so much that's _wrong_ as that it's too narrow.
and, since this narrow definition of a gun's design becomes a convenient launching point for a variety of arguments about a gun's legality, it must be cleared up first.
You see what they are trying to say is that the guns are used for self protection. It seems that equating the number of people killed by *bullets* has nothing to do with the number of guns in circulation. It seems it's a difficult concept to get to grips with.
(To Avatar as well..... (It'll save me writing the same thing in an e-mail... hope you don't mind!!) BTW,, thanks for the points. I DO get your drift and I guess I see your points!
anyway.........
It's gotten to a point where this has become more than just a debate about guns anymore.
I *understand* what you are saying, and obviously the guns being available were not simply to blame. There are obviously social issues that need to be faced. But again, if such a thing happened over here then it would not be at all easy for kids to get guns and take them out in revenge.
I guess ultimately that is my problem.
I *do* realise that guns are pretty much an inherent part of life in the states.
*I* can't change that. And if the American populace do then fine.
FETTERS wrote in message news:uy1990uj#GA.186@cpmsnbbsa05...
reference
Why do do 'some' insist on inserting the word 'volence' with gun related. I got accused of voilent behavour when I through a seriously wet tea-bag at a friend (I was about 9), this is a little different from aiming a gun at his head.
We want the figures on gun related crime! Why not post them.... You know those things that fire bullets and go through flesh/bone etc.. Is that clear enough....
Not applicable in this situation - guns were only banned in 1998, IIRC.
Violent offences != guns related-crime.
Published by the party in opposition at the time, during the run up to an election, IIRC. Suspect enough, and anyway, violent crime != guns.
Stats from prior to the ban.
Or, alternatively, he, living in the UK, might actaully know a bit about what goes on here, and know about what point the stats relating to gun crime and the effect of banning firearms on said crime become valid. Next time, do a bit more homework.
I'll tell you what the cause is....IT'S THE PARENTS! Parents don't teach kids about guns, violence, morals, self control, values, honor, or the gift of life.
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, [email] (Chester Cheater) wrote:
Are you on crack or something?! I'm a parent and I know why this shit is going on. If my child fucks up, and I spank him/her, you know what happens? Some fucked up nosy son of a bitch will call child services on me. That's right. The government has taken away the rights of the parent to raise their children. And if a slightly older child, say around 10 or so, is spanked, they can call child services themselves and claim they were unjustly beaten. Now I know there are people out there that abuse their children, but by 'dumbing down' and making it so that children can't be punished, a new breed of child is being raised. One that thinks they can get away with whatever they want to do.
And what the hell is with this 'new' attitude of reward good behavior and ignore the bad?!? All this teaches a child is that they can get away with bad behavior.
Stepping off of her soapbox, BitchMom aka SilverRaven
i grew up on unwholesome TV, violent video games and comics, and twisted morals instilled by TV parents. however, i can attest to the fact that i was QUITE thoroughly beaten whenever i fucked up, and if not beaten, my parents somehow had the ability to make me feel like pure shit whenever i was bad, and they made sure i knew right and wrong. this hasn't stopped me from making my own choices about right and wrong, (i blame myself for starting smoking) but it has enabled me to tell the difference.
i am now 19 yrs old, and i can assure you i have no desire to kill anyone. i continue to play violent video games and watch violent TV. i only hope i can do what my parents did for me, as for my own kids, if i ever have any.
Umm...dude, that's nothing to put a smiley in about!! I'm only 17, but I've never been spanked and still I've grown up (nearly) to be a "normal" person. If you do something bad and get told it's bad, but continue to do it - prison. That's when the state deals with it (I'm in the UK but you know what I mean). This is HIGHLY off-topic, but just think how painful an adult's hand across a child's back/butt is to them. Some people do that for fun (bondage and such), and the only reason they find it fun is 'cos it's painful, so think about how the child must feel!!
OK that example was a bit sick, but you see what I mean.
The parents of these kids ARE to blame if they knew about the gang, as they should have called the police (yes, on their own kids if they could not control them) well before now.
I, for one, will never hit my children (when I have them), even although I know I will feel near to it at times. I'd like to think I'm a rational person, though.
Actually, the ONLY rights we have here in the US is guns. If we get caught with a hooker or a joint we get busted. Hell, in Alabama (or is it Georgia?), you can't even have a dildo. You can have an AK-47 but you can't have a dildo. (not that I would need a dildo, I'm a guy, but you catch my drift) -Tom
Judging by your use of language BitchMom (not to mention the nick you have given yourself) , I wouldn't exactly be nominating you for mother of the year.
If violence is the only way you can control your children then perhaps authorities do need to be called in.
Well, I use language as the situation fits. If you don't like it, too bad.
The nick is based on Southpark, the group I was replying from. My regular nick is SilverRaven as you could tell by my email address.
You don't know anything about me. You have nothing but a few words on your monitor to which you feel you can judge me. My teenage son's friends think I'm one of the coolest moms around. They come to me with their problems because they know I won't judge them and will help them.
I wonder about someone that can make such grand judgements about someone based on a few posts they read on a usenet group.
Is that a threat? Do your worst trollbait. I have had CPS called on me by nosy 'do-gooders' and they checked my child for marks and talked with him. You know what? They felt they made a wasted trip because the child was perfectly fine and showed NO signs of child abuse (mental or physical) in any way, shape or form.
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.romath came to an end, "Dave Johnson" wrote:
Because some nosy 'do-gooder' thought that because I let my son cry himself to sleep one night, I must have been beating him senseless. They spoil the living crap out of kids, never punish them when they are bad, then are surprised when the kids go out and shot people. Here's a couple bucks, go buy yourself a clue.
As someone in a country which has 1 gun related incident for avery 10,000 in America I'm telling you you are completely wrong. It never fails to amaze me how anyone can ever claim that a blanket removal of guns from the population cannot possibly reduce the number of gun related incidents. I mean how stupid can you get?
Yep, there is this as well. I don't think anyone is suggesting gun control will solve all of America's ills. But it will cut down on the number of people killed by firearms. Surely this is a good thing?
And eventually, Americans will also learn which bits of a given statement are sarcastic or ironic[1] :*)
you can learn a lot about a country by its past. america had the wild west at one point, guns and defence were a way of life and getting rid of that is like getting rid of a large part of history.
There are large sections of society in the USA, here in the UK and probably everywhere else. that are extemely antisocial. We have estates which you cant enter for fear of having your head kicked in. As time goes on our society gets bigger, so the individual gets smaller, at the same time we are all constantly told how we should expect to be able to fulfill all of our dreams (I am thinking of couch potato TV and advertising here). These two things are contradictory, you can be an importtant person, while at the same time you are a small person lost in a sea of humanity. This is bound to cause frustration and disappointment in large sections of society. This is becoming more noticeable everywhere. On the other hand, a disaffected nutcase in this country can go down the pub and have a fight with some other hooligans, if he is feeling particularly pissed off, he can beat up some poor stranger. Both of these possibillities are magnitudes less likely to kill someone, either by design or by accident, than carrying a gun. The only places I have ever seen a gun is, the police at the airport, my time in a military cadet force and when I have to visit miltary bases as part of my job. I just saw a statistic on the news that 8% of teenage boys in america have carried a gun to school. Now OK these news statistics are often damn lies, but there is no doubting that guns are vastly more available over there than they are here, and as a result we have far fewer deaths/serious injuries.
It's called a bunch of spoiled rotten kids with over permissive parents and a school that no longer has the authority to punish the students that's what it is!
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, "ISOLDE" wrote:
More likely it's parents that have had the right to discipline their children taken away years ago, and a school that won't punish the student even if the parent gives permission! I should know, my son was having problems in 1st and 2nd grade and I told them to put him in a corner, or take away his snack time. They told me that can't do any of that any more. The only thing they can do is "time out." Big whoop! Like that really teaches the child.
child: let's see, I really want to punch that kid in the face. Well, the worst they'll do is make me sit down against the wall for 15 minutes. sure it's worth it!
When my parents were growing up, they would never do that stuff. If you asked them why they would say "Because my parents would 'kill' me!" Now days, the child knows the parent can't do jack-shit.
One of the assailants was supposedly brought to the attention
of the local sheriff's department recently by a classmate and
classmate's parent.
The response of the sheriff's department was ( again supposedly )
to do nothing.
Now you might well ask, is not the sheriff's department liable for
negligence at the very least?
Not under US law since about 1840 something. Law enforcement cannot
be held legally accountable for failure to protect the individual
citizen from criminal acts. That being the case, who is repsonsible?
Big hint: look in the mirror.
Unfortunately far too many of the uniformed politicians at command
levels in law enforcement would like to remove the tools required to
provide personal protection ( if necessary ) from the hands of all
civilians. Not everyone needs to be armed but when you do, there is
no substitute. 911 doesn't cut it.
I have to agree with this, and I with "bitchmoms" response before, some Parents In the US are scared of being reported, and I have seen it happen first hand to a friend, but things should be balanced, reward good deeds, and punish, (spank at last resort) but parents should take the time out to explain why it is/was wrong to do what they did. Most Americans have the Illusion that they are free, but this is not true, we are owned and property of the US Gov. simple proof: Is it legal to commit suicide? is it legal to sell your body?, I�m drifting into another subject, but you get my drift.
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, [email] wrote:
Thanks :-)
Yep, I always use physical punishment as a last resort.
I have always done this as well. I mean what the hell is the point if you don't tell the child what it was that they did wrong and why. I don't go for that 'because I said so' crap either.
Yea, I got your drift. It's nice to see someone thinking with their brain instead of just their emotions.
Your chances of being shot in a US school are just a bit under 1,000,000 to 1. You're in more likely to die in a car crash driving to school than you are from a bullet once you're there.
Good point. Guns used to be used by law-abiding parent-respecting flag-saluting children and these children were model citizens. Guns are the scapegoat. I think the problem is that technology has become highly sophisticated, yet people are more alienated from their peers than ever before in history. Amazing isn't it? the fact that I am sitting here alone typing a letter to hudnreds of readers that I have no actual contact with is a great example. People have been reduced to images/symbols to mst people. In other words, people are no longer PEOPLE to people to the extent that they used to be, so it is easy to cross the boundaries between pacifism and violence and kill a person. People who have a lot of contact with other people (by "contact" i mean not just physical proximity but some kind of meaningful relationship/friendship) are more empathetic, caring and accepting of differences in others.
We need to use technology in a way that will allow us to INCREASE our time together because it cuts down on our work. Instead, we are using technology to escape each other. Humans are social beings and if you take away human interaction, people become unbalanced.
Y'know, not _all_ of us are a bunch of gun-nuts. Some of us have decently-sized schwantzes and dont need metallic substitutes.
JB "You know, there are many people in the country today who, through no fault of their own, are sane... It is up to people like you and me who are out of our tiny little minds to try and help these people overcome their sanity.'"- Rev. Arthur Belling
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, "Covenant" wrote:
No, because they'd still manage to get the guns. Even if all law-abiding people turned in their guns, there would still be millions out there. And if a kid wants to get his hands on a gun bad enough, he will.
I don;t like to have to point this out.. but a bullet isn't very good at stopping a bullet. If someone wants to shoot you and has the advantage of cover.. or even just surprise.. a gun isn't going to stop them. Thinking that guns are a good means of defence againsed guns is a very unfortunate delusion.. a better defense would be protective clothing, the *only* decent defence againsed a gun is to stop people having them.. unfortunately once the 'gun culture' is established, its like a drug.. the problem of removing them from a society thats almost completely dependent on them is beyond the best of us.
bullets are somewhat effective in preventing people from shooting each other, tho'. this is indisputable.
perhaps i'm naive, but i believe that people are intrinsically not devoid of morality. i think that, in the long run, arming everyone would solve more problems than it creates.
But isn't that just the situation the USA is in...... More guns .. more dieing from gun related deaths, even if it's only from shooting yourself in the foot while cleaning the bloody thing, you can't shoot yourself in the foot if you're doing your eyeliner, you can if your cleaning your gun....
Oout of interest anyone know how many people are injured or killed by guns through total accidents like above?.
I'd like to see someone prove to me that these people would still have had an accident of similar proportions, if they hadn't had access to a gun
Accidental gunshot deaths as a percentage of the population are at the lowest level ever since statistics wer first collected on accidental death. It's declined about 70% just in the last 30 years. Three times as many children die from falling into swimming pools as die of accidental gunshot wounds. You have to remember that when Handgun Control Incorporated publishes figures on children dying from gunshots that they have cooked the figures to include everyone under 24 as a child. They also neglect to say that over half of them were shot while they were commiting violent felonies.
[email] (Bob Norton) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 23 Apr 1999 16:50:53 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Oh, of course. If someone happens to be in the processing of acquiring a criminal record they aren't really being shot dead...
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic." __
guy ruth hammond decided to put finger to keyboard on the Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:34:48 +0100. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Statistically, everone in the US *IS* armed. They've got more bloody guns than people. And it ain't stopping the gun-related murders.
Can their be no coincidence btween the fact that the murder-rate in the EU (population 350m) is significantly lower than that in the US (population 270m)....
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
[email] (Medusa) decided to put finger to keyboard on the Thu, 22 Apr 1999 19:40:19 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Sorry, but whilst there are less incidences of violent cirme across the EU as a whole; the UK has a similar incidence of violent crime as the US.
Given that we have the same incidence of violent crime as the US, why do we not have your astronomical murder rate?
Simple, we don't have easy access to firearms. It is not cultural.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
[email] (Bob Norton) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 23 Apr 1999 17:06:22 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
And of course, the reason the american military machine aren't building a base in your backyard is obviously your wide collection of pop-guns.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic." __
That's pretty much the fault of the ones who don't have guns. The means to take responsibilty for the protection of yourself and your family are available. If you think that the cops can protect you, you're living in a dream world. If you don't want to protect your own family, you have no right to bitch about it when some crackhead goblin decides to take them out.
Whisky Dave wrote in message news:7gmr0p$8m0$[email]...
else
Bah I own at least 4 guns, and i would rather use a Knife or a Sword , cheaper quieter and just as fast only you wont get arrested for having then in your car
if you'd stopped and thought for an instant, you'd realise how impossible that would be to enforce.>>
Besides, they would start attacking people with knives more. Do you want to ban knives?
--Daniel Gordon. "Will there be beer?" "Beer is not permitted." "Homer no function beer well without." "Would you rather have beer or complete and utter contentment?" "What kind of beer?" -The Simpsons, "The Joy Of Sect"
I live in Canada, and where I live, The only thing you can own is a Shotgun or Rifle. And you need to register it. (along with ammo, so if you shoot someone, they know who you are)
Because of this, Murder with gun in Canada(at least where I live) Is almost unheard of. It is mostly done with knives. That's why the shooting in Alberta has been given so much attention.
Thought I'd leap in here before one of the gun-favourers did, since you left the door open for them. They're going to make their usual rumbling about "See! See! If murderers (who of course can be easily identified) don't have guns they'll just use knives."
Rather than get into that at the moment however, I'd just like to point out you're correct that "Murder with gun in Canada" is almost unheard of; so for that matter is murder with knife. Canada's murder rate (and that of most countries) is nowhere near that of the States.
Well, what if people dont want to disarm. Take a look at Northen Ireland. Everybody wants peace, but nobody wants to give up their guns before the others. What can you do......
Very true. And how many Dunblane/Colerado type massacres have there been in Ireland?
The only people in NI to have guns are the *quasi* military forces. And these guns *are* being given up. Slowly. But it's happening. Northern Ireland is not about who has the most guns. Nowadays it's become more a case of trying to save face and posturing.
The reason that the IRA are holding their guns is due to the fact that they *believe* they are fighting a war.
I am NOT condoning it at all. It's just the way it is. And even THEY are discussing a disarmament process.
Are you dead serious?? (My, that was bad, wasn't it?) Arming versus disarming would seem to be a no-brainer. Arming everyone is a sure path to opportunistic and heat-of-the-moment slayings. If I'm in a room full of people, and we're all carrying, and one of them decides to shoot me between the eyes, what could stop it (assuming they're reasonably quick with a sidearm, which is more than likely.)?? Nothing? Exactly. Maybe the others in the room might avenge my death by killing the attacker...then you have 2 dead people instead of 1. No, arming all is hardly answer.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to the people of Littleton in any way in this posting, but why is there so much discussion about the Littleton, Colorado shooting inthis newsgroup? Can you talk about this in some other group? Alt.tv.southpark is becoming alt.school.shootings. It is disruptive to the people who want to talk about South Park, and it is pushing other people's posts right off of Usenet servers due to this long thread.
And have /every/ angsty teenager have guns available? One of the only things that kept me sane through college was the fact that I DIDN'T have a method of killing everyone else!
Vexen UK, the perky sqwrl-fur cyberpunky bounce maniac industrialist
geek with shades (of course).
my main page: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK
religion pages: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK/religion
Violence in schools (on the part of students) seems pretty much limited to high school students. Also, it seems to be an American phenomena. Other American phenomena is that our students are the poorest educated in the first world. They also rank low in comparison to students in Mexico, Cuba etc. Why is this? Solution: study high schools in those countries where test scores are high and violence is low and emulate those educational styles here. Uniforms/Entrance exams/Exit exams are a great place to start. Also important: limiting social time/increasing homework load. Most important: school past the eighth grade should no longer be compulsory. Students act up and act out because they know that no matter what, they are guaranteed an education. FYI: if a student is expelled, the district puts him on "home study." So no matter what, the student gets his education. I say the hell with that! If a student breaks the rules (and the rules need to be stricter) then the student gets expelled for one year. During this year, the student CANNOT ATTEND SCHOOL. School should be a priviledge. After one year, the student can re-enroll and start where he left off (he will be one year behind but tough shit for him). If he gets expelled again, he can no longer attend public school. He is expelled for life. Too tough? Think again! Tax dollars pay to put these kids through school and those who ruin it for others should not be allowed to stay there. Students who do not maintain a 2.0 GPA should be told that they have 1 semester to improve their GPA to at least a 2.0 or there get expelled according to the rules above. The U.S. is the only country that pretty much allows students to do whatever the hell it is they want at school without really punishing the kids. Education is not a right for the rest of the world. Students in other countries have a greater appreciation for their education because they know they have to earn it!
empirically, the evidence suggests that the US education system works. after all, the US is the most advanced technological nation (apart from maybe singapore) and has the largest, most efficient economy.
i think this is because the system favours the elite over the majority. however, this is probably the best way to do it - after all, even the poorly education benefit from the overall advancement.
Wearing a popular t-shirt means not a criminal because of the TV
show. I remember years ago seeing a FBI video of a drug sting where
the drug dealer is wearing the baseball cap from the movie "Alien".
I've see TV news shows where they are arresting criminals wearing
Bugs Bunny t-shirts, Mickey Mouse t-shirts, etc.
Don't blame South Park for the violence.
{ snip }
As I recall there was an incident in Scotland about a year or two
ago where someone opened fired on a group of children in a
school yard.
As for these areas in the USA where these incidents occur. They
occur in places where hunting rifles are commonplace. And where
hunting with children are a way of life.
I recall that when President Clinton in his youth when he & his
brother went to school in Arkansas. They took their hunting rifles
to school because their mother wanted them to bag something for
dinner that night after they school that day. It was commonplace
in country schools at that time.
What about those Christians that shoot doctors that perform
abortions in the back. Of fire-bomb a clinic.
Or those CHRISTIANS that think it's okay to beat up people
that are homosexuals or gay.
And attacking other religions that don't conform to the Bible
like Wicca, American Indian Religions, Hindu religion, etc.
There are two sides to this if you think about it.
I have to disagree with that, unless you can provide evidence that this blanket statement applies to Littleton, CO. I'll give you Paducah KY and Jonesboro AR. But I don't think Littleton falls into that stereotype, and IIRC Colorado has some rather strict gun control laws (though that may just be Denver).
I was watching Larry King on CNN Tuesday evenings about this
Littleton, Colorado shooting.
One of the people on that show was CBS-TV reporter, "Ed Bradley"
of "60 MINUTES".
He made the statement about this saying(I'm doing this from
memory) "these school shooting incidents occur where guns
like hunting rifles are commonplace where kids would have
access to such weapons(hunting weapons). Also, urban inner
city area schools where street gang members will have guns
that are pistols which can be easily hidden in a coat or
jacket. These urban inner city schools with these guns & gang
members are attacking other gang members. And shooting inside
these schools with gang members are quite rare."
Again this is what Mr. Ed Bradley said(again doing from
memory) on Larry King on CNN Tuesday evening.
Yes, unfortunately these people do exist but I hope you don't lump all Christians into this group. Most of us are just happy to leave everyone else alone. People have to make their own decisions about how to live their lives and these can be made right up to death. It is actually wrong for anyone to attack people for believing different to them (though you wouldn't always think so the way some people act). I don't mean for this to in anyway sound preachy, just had to defend some of us a bit. Now lets get back to Southpark.....
[email] (Alan Laska) decided to put finger to keyboard on the Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:11:14 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
No such inference was being made. It was being highlighted as one of those mildly entertaining coincidences that porvide for some great black humour.
Umm, yes - we banned handguns - no such incident since. Obviously no connection.
You're not very bright are you - THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS STATING.
It's called sarcasm. Ask one of your english teachers about it.
So, shoot big guns and you too can become Prez???
Please tell me that that was a deliberate attempt at flagrant stupidity....
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
It pisses me off to see people suggesting that it's TV or the movies or parents these days not disciplining children. If any of this crap were true, ALL the kids would be murderers! Do you people think that American children are so easily swayed that they don't know the difference between right and wrong just because they saw someone get killed on TV? Violence has been on TV and the movies since they began! And the government isn't keeping parents from disciplining their children, and if it was, NO children would be disciplined, and everyone would be shooting each other every day, using the logic I've seen on this board.
It's obvious that these two kids were the exception to the rule; most American kids would not enter a high school on a killing spree. If anyone watched the news, they would see the students were FLEEING, because they are NORMAL Americans. A lot of people on this board, especially the Brits, seem to want to generalize ALL American youths as troubled, lost souls. That's just not the way it is.
Robert Martin wrote in message news:PWuT2.757$[email]...
There's a wide range of parents but when the athorities try to stop parents disciplining thier children (within reason) childeren can report thier parents for the smallest smack. Teachers can't even hint at physical restraints to disapline a child.
Yep, not when there brough up on some violent TV a balence is needed. Some are affected more than others and to differing degrees but ALL are affected.
But the childrens are arriving at school undisaplined, and disruptive, this wasn;'t the case 20 years ago.
day,
You're assuming everyone is cloned from the same DNA then.
Agreed.
anyone
are
Hang on a miniute these kids are NORMAL American... did they do what NORMAL Americans do......
That's
I don't think anyone here has said that..... It;s just that while a Brit may think about gunning down a load of students (Yep even cute me has these thoughts) It's never a practicale solution, even when in a violent temper.... Us Brits can't walk in to a shop and buy a gun for 'home' defence. Like we would a bottl;e of whisky.
:Oh yes if only a teacher had smacked Eric Harris, all would have been solved :and he would have said Thanks for that, I now see the errors of my ways. : :Can anybody spell Naive?
Disipline on the day of the incident wouldn't have done much, but disipline of all of the involved children (both the shooters, and the other children he/they interacted with) over the course of their lives might have (might) prevented or lessened this event.
petro wrote in message news:250419991555068165%[email]...
At last we agree on something and this holds true as much for the US as the UK. Kids are brought up today with no respect for police (deserved or not), parents, teachers and elders in general. A large amount of smaller crimes (such as burglary) is down to children, at least in the UK. The problem is that the kids know they won't be punished if they get into trouble. I think that if nothing is done soon then society will just continue in a downward spiral with violence and crime becoming the norm and not the exception. I was brought up to respect parents etc and so were most of the kids I grew up with. I went to a strict school and I knew if I got into trouble I would more than likely go to a youth detention centre as well as getting a real beating from my father. I was scared to do anything wrong and it worked. Seems that sort of upbringing is what's needed today as the kids of today are the adults of tomorrow.
I respectfully disagree. Anybody can crack down and get good behavior for a while. But ISTM we decided a few decades ago that we had to find some other way to get people to behave. Look at this essay:
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
The problem is that we've confused an approach that doesn't depend on cracking down with merely _being_slack_. We're having an orgy of slack right now, but Hall Monitors From Hell in the Dr. Laura mode are _not_ what's needed--_anyone_ can just crack heads. We need conscientious parenting and empathy-based ethical instruction, with restitution rather than retribution to redress wrongdoing. We need hippy-dippy, touchy-feely, tree-hugging shit (but of course it's _not_ shit when done right), and we all _know_ this inside, and we're all frustrated that it's not coming together. But you give people that and they'll _respect_ (_not_ fear) you. (Personally, I don't truly respect anyone I fear.)
Loving-the-child-and-not-disciplining-him hippyshit is one of the main reasons for the huge increase in youth crime today. My father's generation would rarely get into serious trouble as they knew the local village bobby would give them a clip round the ear and talk to the parents who would get out their belt and give them a damn good hiding. Worked then and it will work now. If the kids do nothing wrong then there is no reason to punish them. They will have nothing to fear. The only thing they have to fear is if they break the rules and then they deserve to be punished.
So burglary is just boys being boys? In my area young boys were responsible of 90% of the burglaries. The police knew who they were and arrested them numerous times but every time it went to court they were set free to do it again. Eventually a responsible citizen was reduced into scaring the crap out of them by kidnapping them and putting a loaded gun in their mouths. They messed their trousers and never did it again. That one event cut crime in our area by 50%. Even the police know there is nothing they can do as they've had their powers taken away from them. If the village bobby was to give a kid a clip round the ear today he would lose his job and probably go to jail.
Fact is, it's not crime that's changing, it's the age of the criminals and that's because nobody teaches them respect and right from wrong.
A friend that;'s a school teacher has just had a 8-year-old placed in his class that been passed from school to school in the bourgh. In a fight he delibratly pushed a pencil in to a fellow childs eye causing perminant eye damged, this 'kid' has become a disturbing influence on the class, which once had average results now is close to the bottom, he fights with other kids and last week two teachers had to seperate him when 3 other kids were involved in a fight with him. The school can't transfer him, can't do anything about it.
Last year there were rapes and cases of sexual abuse at the school between children but it gets hushed up. I remeber the great thrill of watching a friend lift up a girls skirt when I was around 11, which isn't the same as three boys locking a girl in a toilet and raping her. It isn't the same as 2 of the boys in the glass recieving oral sex as protection money from some of the girls. The teacher is powerless to do anything the parents are useless and could careles, it's a jhouvernille crime so the poluce aren't really interested so it's ignored until their 16 when it's too late to change.
_Read_..._my_post_..._again_. Where do I talk about "not disciplining"???
No--_slack_ is. But slack is NOT the same thing as "touchy-feely hippy shit", and if you think it is, congratulations on swallowing the Establishment line whole. Read that essay I linked to--it'll explain things better.
Yes, redress for wrongdoing should be sure, swift, and fair (you know, the part you forgot about), but it should be based on _restitution_, not retribution, wherever possible. Retribution does nothing for the people who originally get hurt.
So what? Do you really think that's the _only_ thing that'll work?? Sorry--cracking heads is the easy, cheap solution. I want _better_.
That's IF all the right rules are written. You yourself point out that you have no problem with drug use. But it's against the rules. What then? Do you support violent retribution for people doing something that's not wrong???
Ah yes Fear, the ultimate way to control children.....oh how I yearn for the good old days.
Put a sock on it, respect is earned, not demanded. Threating kids with the beatings of their lives does nothing.....go visit a prison one day, you'll find a lot of them did get the beatings of their lives, and yet they still committed crimes.
While we are on about old people with their high moral values, why is that everyone was cool when they smoked Dope and all the rest in their Woodstock, hippy days.....now however kids are just evil when they do drugs. Talk about double standards.
The world was long going to pot (no pun intended) before the 90's and the adults of today who are the ones passing the blame are the ones who should be bearing the most responsibilty.
Grade level 3 wrote in message news:2XXU2.3149$[email]...
Fear of being punished for doing wrong is a good thing. The kid learns right from wrong.
Where did I say beat the kids regardless? Punish them of they do wrong. Big difference between that and beating them into submission. The people in prison that were given beatens obviously didn't have a balanced upbringing. Bring the child up in an atmosphere of love just teach them right from wrong, something that has fallen by the wayside of late.
I don't think doing drugs is evil. Drugs are just a for of recreation that society has attached a stigma to but drug use (not abuse) is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned.
The troubles stared, at least in the UK in the mid 80s so it's the adults of today who are passing it on that should be the ones making the changes.
Not properly though. They learn heteronomous morals. They only do things for ulterior (ie not getting hit) motives. THis does not bred true morality. True morality (according to Kant et al) must me autonomous, and must be people doing good acts because it is what they feel is the right thing to do - without exterior motives. Only then can you properly have a moral person. and this cannot be accomplished through corporal punishment.
This is yet another problem with corporal punishment to produce heteronomous morality. Who gets to decide?? Some kids may be hit for what others are allowed. I would suspect that the vast majority would be beaten into believein that recreational drug use is wrong. Although your children would not see it that way.
They could introduce a fast track, non plea-bargainable death sentence for any form of deliberate wounding involving a firearm. Kind of like the Thai policy on drug smuggling. I everyone knew they'd be killed the moment the so much as pistol-whipped someone, they /might/ think twice.
But I still think having no guns at all is the best idea.
Unfortunately, as we are seeing, the fact that they exist at all means IResponsible people can get them as easily as the responsible.
I've said it before, I'll continue to do so. It rather see a million responsible people not have acess o guns than see ONE MORE innocent person shot down in cold blood by a coward.
:The question is not will they still be available. The question is will :they be more, or less available.
Wrong question.
The question is _for whom_ will they be available.
If you outlaw them, your average law abiding citizen _won't_ have them, only the criminals will (both within and outside the government) have ready access to them.'
The problem ISN'T with law abiding citizens having access to guns, it's with the criminals and the government.
15 kids died in Colorado. How many have died in Kosovo?
And you still think that _my_ pistol is the problem?
But with guns they can kill a lot quicker and more effectively. Take away the most effective tools and you stop them killing so many people. I doubt the kids in Colorado would have used a nailbomb as they wouldn't have been able to see the look on their victims faces.
i'm confused. were you refuting the "guns don't kill people" thing, or supporting it? you start out with the "pathetic" sentence which leads me to think you're slagging it, but then proceed to prove it for us with this example.
Whisky Dave wrote in message news:7g1vej$135$[email]...
Guns do kill people. Virtually the whole of the UK is in mourning for Jill Dando, who was shot in the head today. She was a popular news reader and presenter. They're still looking for the person who did it.....
That is what everyone has been saying in the UK since the gun ban and amnesty. The amnesty worked to a certain extent and cleared a lot of weapons, but not all. Personally, I enjoy shooting, and at the expense of being flamed, I have a 12 bore a .22 hunting rifle, and .22 air rifle, as I live on a farm. Generally, the weapons are used for killing vermin and pheasants, though I do use the rifle on a range as a sporting rifle. I also still manage to shoot hand weapons as I am in the TA, where the weapons training is excellent: you are not allowed out on a range until you have passed numerous tests to show that you are competent and safe at handling the weapon. My gun cupboard is double locked, and in a room that has deadlocks on the door. The bolt for the rifle is stored separately, and ammo is locked away in a separate building. I don't ever intend any of the weapons to fall into the wrong hands.
look at the usefulness/Deaths ratio. It is much higher for guns than cars. Especially if you allow gun at gun clubs, just not in personal homes, cars, etc...
Cars are not designed to kill, though. I concede that you can target- shoot with a gun, but the fact remains that the primary purpose of a gun is to turn a live thing into a dead thing. I fail to see that this is in any way laudable, ever. This is not true of cars.
Accidental deaths can be curbed by training and requiring that firearms be stored RESPONSIBLY by their owners. You don't have to ban guns to reduce accidental deaths. Just like you don't have to ban cars to reduce traffic deaths. You require training before you can have a license, and you require strict rules as to how the weapon is to be handled and stored.
Yes, you're still going to have those Stupid Idiots who don't show firearms the respect that they demand, but IMHO they're better off out of the gene pool anyway if they're that dumb.
There are many accidental shootings each year. This is true. But for every accidental shooting, there are probably a hundred firearms that *never* go off "accidentally" because they are handled and stored by responsible owners. Banning on the least common denominator is a poor practice.
So the gun ban didn't affect the criminals who "get paid too much to murder people," is that it? So now that they've outlawed guns, only the outlaws have guns... wait a second, where have I heard that before?
Somehow I'm not surprised that you've had to devolve into vulgarity in order to attempt to get your point across. Not at all.
God damn, you are so right! I mean, all those lovely police men must be soooo unhappy at having to hand in their firearms in the ban as well. Silly old Britain. We should have thought this out before we put it into practice, huh?
Next time, engage brain before toggling computer power switch.
I didn't *have* to, at all. I simply wished to. It's called "free will". It's also called "grown up language". You play with your lethal "grown up toys" and I'll play with words. I could be wrong but I think I'm in less danger of blowing my foot off with it. And when was the last time you heard of a child accidentally blowing its own head off with a past participle?
See if you can understand this if a person that does not have the 'special reason' to have a gun is carrying a gun they are then defined as a criminal, and can be arrested, they CAN NOT claim to carry a gun for self defence. They can be arrested and charge and the weapon taken from them BEFORE they kill someone, not afterwards as it is in America I believe.
If I'm wrong sorry but what exactly is the Law (I know it may be diffent between states) with regards carrying a gun is it OK to walk down the 'sidewalk' (I've an American flatmate I know a bit of the lingo) with a gun YES or NO?.
There will always be guns availble at a price, you could probably make your own with suffient skill.
Also buy owning a gun means he was breaking the law, if the police had been able to search for weapons he would have been found to have been breaking the law and have the gun removed and arrested for carrying a weapon.
I've no idea how this would relate to America. Could the police have removed the guns from the Trench coat mafia before they shot someone or do they have to wait until someone is shot as they obviously said they were carring them for self defence?.
Also it was worth a hell of a lot on money to him not to. If he had'nt been able to buy a gun *he* would have used another method.
It's a totaly different senerio from walking in to a shop buying a few guns and going target shooting at anyone you feel deserves to be shot. See Goth murders.
One shooting, the first shooting in London this year (compare that to any big city in the US). It appears to have been an assassination. She was both a crime Journalist and had done some pieces on the humanitarian crisis in Kosvo. It was not a random killing it was not member of the general public.
The killing has dominated the news for the last 24 hours, not quite on the scale of Diana's death, but certainly more then anything since that time.
Point 1 : This is the first gun related killing in the U... um Britain... in some time... Point 2 : Her death was a professional hit by the looks of things...
: 'Nuff said?? So because a professional killed her it really doesn't matter and has no implications on the fact that the UK is supposed to have such fantastic gun control laws?? It actually goes to prove that such laws are only as effective as the willing participation of the populace allows. Since a "professoinal" can choose to ignore the laws and still get a gun and kill someone.
Most European prefessional hitmen live in Spain... which if I must explain... ISN'T part of the UK. Therefore they can get their hands on guns quite easily.
In the same way we can outlaw rape but we can't stop a rapest so maybe we should make rape legal. Actualy it was legal until recently.... A man could rape his wife as she was his property and did not have the 'right' to refuse.
"Whiskey Dave" had the infernal gall to misspell the following:
Funny how that works, ain't it? Golly, you mean a criminal might not obey the law? Someone should give those people a good talking to!
No, by your line of reasoning, we should make penises illegal as a rape preventative. After all, it's much more difficult to rape someone if you don't have a penis, just like it is much more difficult to kill someone if you don't have a gun.
Just think of it, Dave; date-rape will become a thing of the past if we put a mandatory waiting period on a stiffie as well.
I can see the slogans for "Penis Control Inc's" campaign, "Penises rape thousands of children every year!" "Penises transmit venereal disease to minors!" "Most violent crimes are done by people with penises; ban the penis today to cut down on crime!"
The National Penis Association will be formed, and famous schlong meister John "Long Dong" Holmes will be put in charge. They will have an astoundingly common sense slogan like: "Penises don't rape people, people rape people." Which penis control advocates will disparge with heart-rending tales of toddlers being raped by big, scary, ugly penises weilded by madmen.
*Hands "Whiskey Dave" a bris-knife and waits for him to do the right thing*
Bob Norton wrote in message news:7g7bqj$3vu$[email]...
well if someone was willing to pay to have me shot, it would prove I was worth something, and that somebody would be willing to pay to remove me from society is quite flattering......
I based it on comon sense, something you seem to be lacking.
You quoted 45% of murders in the US were carried out using firearms. Ban guns and you could reduce the number of murders by a good 30%. If you want to defend yourself use pepper spray or a tazer. Neither will kill but they will sure as hell stop an assailant. I know, I've used all 3.
In the UK London I once got a lift (in a french car) with 3 French girls to a club. The police stoped the car and search everyone, one of the girls had a small can of some anti-attack/ rape protection spray stuff that's illegal in the UK. They charged her and made them spend most of the night in police station... The Bastards (Police that is)
I used a tazer here. I was mugged downtown by a bum. He knocked me to the floor but I shoved it in his crotch. The look on that guys face will haunt me until I die.
I used pepper spray and carried a gun in Moscow. The gun held 9 bullets, the first 6 of which were blanks. I used it for scare value only as westerners were being mugged all the time. I stopped carrying it after I had to use it. A guy pulled a knife on me in a metro station, I pulled a gun and he ran off. The fact that I was actually capable of taking another human life horrified me so I gave it back to the person who gave it to me and went to pepper spray instead.
That's remarkably stupid. 6 blank rounds would provide plenty of time for a goblin to ascertain that you're not a threat and take your gun away. Furthermore, the blanks will not provide the gas pressure necessary to chamber the next round. You'd get off ONE shot, click the trigger uselessly a few times and then have the weapon forcibly inserted where the sun doesn't shine.
perhaps because every once in an while there are times when something needs to get dead fast?
the longer and more correct answer would be to explain that as long as there is greed there will be war. as long as there is war, there will be guns. as long as there are guns, criminals will get them. and as long as criminals have them, law abiding folk should have the right to defend themselves.
Your complete abandonment of any collective approach to the problem is interesting here : you're saying that it's better for everyone to (have to?) go armed than to arrange a society where we don't have to. Personally I'd feel that my freedom was more infringed if I had to be armed for my safety than I do currently. As it is, there are no areas near where I live that I wouldn't feel safe about walking through, which is something that notably wasn't true for the people I visited in the States a couple of weeks ago.
This obviously isn't purely due to the firearms laws - after all, I could still get beaten up by someone completely unarmed - but there's a general attitude in the States that justifies individual use of force far far more than in other industrialised countries, and the general view of (and lack of regulation of) firearms encourages it. I can't see anything being done about this, so I suppose all of you over there'll just have to live with it, and over here we can all sit about and be smug.
i'm not saying any such thing. someone asked by guns should be legal since they serve one purpose - to kill. the above is a reason. i'm not advocating that we _all_ arm ourselves. what i'm saying is, in a world where guns _are available_ to the criminal element (something that will never change) making them unavailable to the public is a bad idea.
what i'm saying is, a society where no one would ever need a gun is _impossible_.
<small snip>
then you only went to a few very specific areas? very little of the usa (of which i've seen a wide variety of places) is so violent as to be unsafe to simply pass through.
It works here. I'm prepared to admit that it took a while, but things didn't (to my knowledge) actually get worse at any point. Most of the regulation of firearms in Britain has taken place this century, so it's not remote history.
We're very close.
We were told not to turn left and walk towards town. This was in St. Louis, but I've been told this in other cities too. I suspect people were over- reacting a bit, but it's difficult to be sure.
no, it's proly not over reacting. there were sections of chicago i was told never to enter on foot. but, it's still a very limited perspective. (no offense) most of america is not urban. it's either suburban or rural. where telling someone "don't go down brown st. you'll get shot" would only illict hoots of laughter.
And how many more people would have died if they had automatic weapons? Besides, it irrelevant, because banning guns WILL prevent ACCIDENTAL shootings. and that's at least something (not many kids stumble onto their dads nailbomb and accidentally blow themselves up)
Porper storage of firearms will also prevent ACCIDENTAL shootings. I have no sympathy for the families who leave LOADED guns in the house where children can access them when those children get hold of the gun and kill themselves or others. My sympathies lie with the families of the victims, but not with the gun owners if it's their own child who's killed.
A gun is NOT a toy. It is a lethal weapon, and needs to be handled and treated with the respect that is due.
It is much easier to keep guns away from law abiding people then it is to make sure they keep them locked. Besides, little johnny finds the key, take s the gun, loads it to show his friends... BLAM!
And taking guns away from law-abiding people won't do diddly about the criminal element. But that's another kettle of fish.
...and thus it is the parent's responsibility for not putting the key somewhere where little Johnny couldn't get to it. And for putting the ammunition somewhere where Little Johnny could get to it. Which means it was stored irresponsibly, for all that it was locked up.
It doesn't help to lock something then leave the key where it's easily accessible - think "Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs"...
The people who have claimed responsibility almost certainly *do* have automatic weapons. I suspect that they used nailbombs instead because they're less likely to get caught that way - hence the IRA *bombing* campaigns on mainland Britain, instead of shooting campaigns.
: Not many kids in homes where firearms safety is taught and lived by the family "stumble onto dad's guns" and accidentally kill themselves. The problem is and will always remain ignorance. Where accidents happen is when parents stick their head in the sand and don't mention a single thing about the gun they bought to their children and control the children's access to it. Instead they hide it in the house and when the kid finds it they don't know any better and play with it. *This* is what leads to firearms accidents not just the fact that guns exist. On its own a gun is not dangerous. It is an inanimate object. By adding someone ignorant in the use and safety of *handling* a weapon then a danger is present. If that person handling the gun was taught some basic form of firearm safety the danger once again goes away.
The same goes for driving a car. A car is not inherently dangerous as an inanimate object just sitting there. Place someone in control of the vehicle who is ignorant of driving safety and the ability to handle a vehicle properly and a danger becomes evident. Teach that person how to drive and teach them basic road safety and the danger is decreased.
One thing is that with guns not tolerated in the UK (remember UK police forces are not routinely armed) is that it makes criminals with guns even more abhorrent to society and removes any sympathy. Its also means it is easier to spot criminals.
But the guys at the school in Denver were not criminals, mots high school massacres were not carried out by criminals (well I suppose they became criminals by the time they used the guns in the massacres). It is easier to justify the use of a gun if everyone has one and guns are quite capable of carrying out hideous amounts of death. ?The Dunblane and Hungerford massacres carried out in this country were not carried out by criminals they were carried by seriously and sadly disturbed individuals who got access to guns and used them, if they could not have found them through legal means it is unlikely they would have had them and the people they killed would have never died
Here is where we agree. One murder is way too many.
Where we disagree is that banning guns will not keep the criminals who commit those murders from maintaining their own weapons anyway. Access to guns does not, in my personal experience lead to murder. Through out the last 22+ years that I have known people who own firearms and shoot avidly, not one, including myself has comitted murder. All were stable responsible people with kids who were educated on the subject and would *never* take out a gun to show off to their friends. The thought that just the existence of a gun in a life means that eventually that person will murder is preposterous. Those who are interested in committing murder do use guns at times, they also use a variety of other weapons to achieve that goal.
The above is logical, but I was responding to your emotional posts and comments and assumptions about gun owners that are *not* logical. If you actually paid attention you would see that most gun owners agree that *murder* is wrong. Some might even agree that guns should be banned. I, regardless of owning guns or not, do not see any evidence that banning guns will stop the violence in US cities. Ergo, I do not support banning guns as crime control. What I do support is heavy enforcement of the existing close to 10,000 gun laws that exist in this country along with trying to find the root causes that lead to why kids feel the need to kill kids. Without resolving that social issue, you can ban whatever you like and will still have problems of students killing other students, just using different means.
Being a gun owner has nothing to do with it. Taking the time to look beyond the emotional level of gun control has everything to do with it.
Say you have cancer. Do you just ban something out of your life to resolve it (ie Oh I won't eat this. Or I won't smoke that or drink that.)?? No you go in and remove the cancer itself or you undergo sometime of treatment targetted specifically at stopping the cancer. Because no matter what else you do the cancer doesn't just go away unless you directly address it and it can take a lot of work to resolve.
The same can be applied to guns. Kids and people are killing each other in the US (not exactly a large percentage of the population to any degree). We ban guns. They kill each other with other weapons. We ban those. They move onto other methods. We ban those. And so it goes in an endless cycle. Now say instead we take a look at the situation and try to figure out why those kids did what they did. By investigating those root causes perhaps we can do something to stop those causes. Remove those causes and you stop the killing regardless of what people are capable of owning. There is a growing lack of respect for any other human being in some sections of US society, which is a factor, but not the only answer. Overall, though, instead of putting a band aid on a majoy wound the time has come to actually heal the wound itself...
Hi (again......) I *do* get your points... but this analogy is a bit incorrect.
Avatar wrote in message ...
A lot of people *don't* smoke because of the facftr that it can lead to cancer..
(And guess who is one of them!! ; ' ) ) But the last part of your sentence...... Well, *I* see guns as a metephorical cancer. Which *would* take a lot of time and determination to get rid of, (as well as a lot of resolve).
Ahhh...but once you've *got* the cancer...stopping smoking doesn't make it go away...;)
:
:
: I see your point on this one, but I tend to view the gun violence (and violent crime in general) more as a symptom of the cancer. Kind of like the difficulty breathing you get with lung cancer to use your analogy...Kind of a wake up call that something is pretty seriously wrong...But still just a symptom nonetheless...
Then why is it that there is such a strong correlation between gun availability and gun incidents.
avidly,
Good for you,
So why can't America (in this instance) control who has guns.
I agree but is is not also preposterous that someone might steel or take your gun, or that it may be sold on to such a person.
But guns are esasier and safer in general.
we're not talking about across the board violence, but gun related deaths and incidents.
kill
So why is it that more people are killed via a gun than say knives? (I'm talking delibrate acts, before someone starts that people kill themselves while wanking or something)
Well yes but the more poeple that owwn guns the greater the pressre to own one oneself, and of course to be able to use one. This in turn makes them cheaper and more readily available. It also has the effect of making them socialy accetable.
But if the person sitting oppersite me is eating or drinking or even smoking something that is going to cause them cancer why should it worry me, it's their choice. If they have a gun there's a chance that it could kill me, accidentally or not.
Her the cancer is either the guns, or the want (their not a need) to have the them. Lets cut it out as you say.
But to a far lesser extend do you think those kids that killed the 15 would have been able to kill 15 with a small knife?.
an
Yep, you ban anything you believe can kill that isn't neccessary to have for a noraml everyday existance.
You can only do thsat after the event when it's too late.
In the UK we rarley put in Zebra (that's ZEDbra ;-) until some poor kid is killed or serverly injured despite parents campagning.
Clp clap clap.
The time has come to insure the wound can not happen or at the very least unlikely to happen surely.
There's not! according to a University of Chicago study it actually lowers the rate of violent crime. You people from europe need to keep you opinions about guns and the control of them to yourselves. I guarantee if the people of Ireland had the same access to weapons that I have, you brits would not have a fighting chance. BTW you english snots can keep all of the intrusive governmental interference (i.e. video surveillance).
We do. The Second Ammendment of the Constitution says I can and that settles it.
STUPID IDEAS NO 54256831 LETS GET A COUNTRY WHICH LETS TEENAGE KIDS GET HOLD OF GUNS AND KILL HALF THEIR SCHOOLMATES, GET THEM TOGETHER WITH A COUNTRY THAT LETS SOMEONE CARRY OUT A BOMBING CAMPAIN AGAINST MINORITY GROUPING, AND SEE HOWMANY KOSOVAN REFUGEES THEY CAN KILL ON A SINGLE BOMBING RAID!
The USA being a glorious example of this theory in practice </S>
Deny the right to free expression too? What are you afraid of? Anyway, they're just opinions; nothing is really going to change in the States - I doubt the situation is ever going to improve, but nor do I believe it will deteriorate further. Gun circulation is at an effective saturation point - it _can't_ get worse. So it would appear that most American folk are simply prepared to tolerate elevated levels of gun related crime. If they weren't, _that_ particular constitutional amendment would have been clarified long ago.
I can't believe you said that! If the "Troubles" really represented a _war_, in any useful definition of the sense, then the issue would have probably been resolved a long time ago.
"A fighting chance?" Is this an educated opinion or just an ignorant ejaculation: could it be that you're not particularly well informed?
...that settles it. You're not.
"Snots?" that's nice :)
Well that's all OK then. Everything is OK.
ps
I find myself depressed and alarmed at the amount of anti-American and reactionary anti-British sentiment prevalent on these threads... can we all stop it now?
To quote one of Murphy's Laws: There is no situation so bad, that it can not be made worse.
While it is unlikely that the amount of munitions per capita will increase by any significant level, it can easily get much worse but allowing larger weapons in private hands.
Think about it. If the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is (in part) to protect the people from the gov't, how effective can it be with rifles and hand guns??? They'll need full auto machineguns, and maybe rocket launchers too.
Can't get worse??? It can. Let's just hope it won't.
But the US authorities are world class experts at it! Your FBI & CIA have far better tabs on who is doing what (especially considering how much larger an area they have to cover, and the much larger population in the US) than our lot could ever hope to have.
If you think the US civilian population could possibly overthrow the federal government by force of arms, you're sadly mistaken - the US military have far better weapons & equipment than the general populace. A few automatics and semiautomatics aren't much use against tanks, miniguns & rocket launchers. The 2nd amendment was a fine idea when America was a new country with a vast and wild frontier. There was a need for families to be able to defend themselves against wild animals & marauding outlaws. But the US is, or would like to think it is, now a civilised country, with sufficient law-enforcement infrastructure to abrogate the need for an armed civilian population.
Vigilantism is already illegal and has been for some time. There are no wild beasts to hunt in the inner cities, and many weapons are owned by people with no intention to hunt animals. That leaves target shooting, and shooting people. I have nothing against farmers having guns to control pests & predators, but in a city, the only people who might need guns are the cops and the army.
That doesn't settle anything. That just says how it is now. The debate is on how it should be. Ie. SHOULD america repeal the 2nd ammendment. SHOULD the us ban guns.
oh and BTW: Your ireland point seems more in favour of banning than not banning.
Why are you on Usenet if you don't want to hear people's opinions?
Ah, the same reason so many other egotistical morons too illiterate to get published elsewhere are on - so that *everyone else* can get to hear your opinions.
Oh really? Ever been to Ireland? Know any Irish people (and no, Noraid supporting Americans with Irish pretensions don't count) ?
If the 'people of Ireland' (and I presume you mean Ulster here, rather than Ireland) had easy access to weapons, the worst that would happen is a lot more Irish people killed by each other. I suspect that even that wouldn't occur, though.
The extremist nutters, and the gangsters masquerading as extremist nutters, already have weapons. The vast majority of other Irish people don't, because they've known too many dead friends & family & are sickened by the violence, whatever their politics/religion.
The British involvement is unfortunate & questionable, but there ain't any right answers here. Most of the Protestants & Loyalists come from families that have lived in Ireland since long before you so-called Americans ripped off & murdered the native people of 'your' country to acquire it in the first place.
Americans OUT of North America!
Give it all back to the Lakota, Sioux, Apaches, etc etc etc.
I believe Jealousy has a prior claim on the Appalachians.
While we're righting the world's wrongs, can we expel the Normans, Danes, Angles, Frisians, Jutes, Romans, & Celts out of England, & give it back to the Beaker People?
Why stop there? How about cloning a load of Cro-Magnons & arming them with automatic weaponry to wipe out all the Homo Sapiens usurpers?
You should read the current Private Eye. Get some perspective....
**************************
"AMERICA - A SICK SOCIETY
Once again, the world has been shocked by the depths of depravity to which modern America has sunk. The US is mired in its obsesssion with guns, violence, and the wilder reaches of psychopathic disorder.
An ordinary suburban schoolroom is littered with the bodies of innocent schoolchildren.
Thank goodness it couldn't happen here, in a sleepy Scottish village, whoops!, er....
on other pages: Brixton Bomb, new suspects - Brick Lane, Neo Nazis responsible? - Kalashnikov shootings in Bolton - Mardi Gras Bomber sentenced - Bulger Killers, new appeal"
*************************
etc etc etc
There are mad fuckers everywhere. Of course there's no point in guns but I could get slaughtered on Tooting High Street with a fucking food processor attachment.
: Funny, but your arguments seem to consistently lack that.
: Trying to figure if you mean that banning guns will drop that percentage to 15% or if it will drop 30% of that 45% of murders out of the mix. The latter I might agree with, the former I certainly would not. The banning of firearms is only as effective as the willing participation of those in a society and its laws. Those who commit murder with firearms, by a vast percentage are people who habitually disrepsect and ignore those laws. How is it common sense to think that all of a sudden they will just roll over and be nice guys for a change??
Realistically speaking what will likely happen is that those crimes of passion that people happily tout as a major problem, which are not as big an issue as you would believe will instead be performed with knives or some type of blunt object or the like or even good old fashioned fists and kicking causing enough internal injuries for death. Thus, what will likely happen is that while the overall gun death numbers may drop some small amount, the figures for other items causing death will rise. Rather simple on a common sense level.
Many jurisdictions restrict access to pepper sprays of any decent effectiveness to law enforcement only. Even the UK has stringent controls on what can be used to defend onself in that way. Tasers are also not that readily available and those hand shocking devices are being investigated as to their usefulness.
Regardless of the fact that I like to own guns, I prefer to use my brain as my first line self defense weapon. If that doesn't work leaving the area is the next best thing. If that doesn't work then a kick from my steel toed boots usually does the trick. Situation over. I have never drawn a gun in anger. Not once and it is not in my nature to do so. Most gun owners and law abiding citizens who fight against murder and death in schools and all other crime, yet they are demonized by people like yourself who claim that guns are wrong and anyone who wants to own one or who can't see that gun control is the answer has no compassion. Give it a rest. Stop relying on emotion to support your arguements, and let's start with some facts.
I am still waiting for someone to answer my question posted quite a while ago and few times since: Exactly how does gun control resolve the issues that lead to kids going to school and killing their classmates??
I'd like to see the media harp on that for a change instead of trench coats, gun bans and video games. Why not make the american people think about things intelligently for a change??
Hang on one god-damned minute. If you admit that banning guns will decrease the murder rate by even a quarter of a percent you have absolutely no excuse for supporting the continued usage of the damned things.
Either you're a blood-thirsty maniac or else you're a hypocrite. Take your pick and send me an answer on a postcard.
: Actually if you noticed what I wrote, it said that while I agree that the firearms related murder rate *might* go down, the murder rates for other implements would go *up*. Just pointing out the obvious to those who can't seem to see it. Overall I do not think the numbers will go down much at all, just reorganize themselves based on weapons availability to some. And since I am neither a blood thirsty maniac or a hypocrite I suggest you read what I posted before accusing me of being either. Gun realted murder rates dropping a few percent while other weapon related murders raising a few percent is hardly what I would call decreasing the murder rate...
The chances of surviving a workover with a baseball bat are rather higher than if someone empties a clip into your torso, or even a single bullet. I put it to you that, although the percentages may change as you suggested, the actual *numbers* of deaths would decrease.
Simple as that. Don't try touting statistics in a feeble attempt to cloud the issue.
Not really. Your forgetting the lethality of it. Most people ARN'T trained to use knives. A crime of passion with a gun is deadly, because one shot and someone can die. With fists or a knife (especially with dometic murders) it is increasingly likely that the attack will not result in death. The sight of blood tend to stop many crimes of passion, especially domestic.
: Of course you will already see this in action in the crime statistics that exist, with more people being raped and/or assaulted by those they know and trust as opposed to murdered. Hence, why I feel the changes will be slight in each direction.
: The point is that even though there is a gun ban in the UK, people can still use guns to kill people. Plain and simple. Most likely to show that the magical world of there never being a gun related death or crime ever again to be kind of innaccurate.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that a gun ban will suddenly and totally stop all gun-related deaths. It will, however, cut down on them. If even *one* live is saved by such a thing, then it's more than worth it.
Good point. However, in my opinion, and probably the opinions of those in favour of banning guns, more lives would be saved by guns being illegal than by them being widely available.
Now *that's* funny!!! Last time the city I live near did an Amnesty cash for guns program they found that someone turned around and sold half the guns they got back onto the street before they were destoryed...Yep those amnesties work so perfectly...Yes they do....
: Not exactly what I've read recently...I'll have to figure out where I have read that....
Of course, if you ask many Americans they think that guns cannot be obtained illegally in the US. They just don't know *how* to do it so are unaware...
Which is quite ironically because in the UK they did not any money for the gun and it is thought that a large number of weapons were taken out of circulation, not all, but the view was that every gun out of circulation was one less that could become part of an accident, fall into the hands of a criminal, or be used by someone deranged.
Having nukes is good for the soul.. nerve gas is great fun and bacterial weapons can look cool.. yeah, right.
How do you tell if someone is responsible.?.. and even responsible people act irresposibly from time to time.. I bet half the gun owners around here wouldn;t dream of putting a baby alone in a room with a rottwieler.. however trusted the pet was..
No vested interest there then
= Gun nut.. this is getting tres boring.. keep guns if you like, just don't expect respect from me.
I'm not going to argue with someone who feels free to change contexts, assumtions and scenarios just because they think a discussion is a battle to be won rather than an exchange of ideas.. everything has been said that can be said.. the rest is pointless brow beating.
Don't you realise this is the CASE. NOT everyone IS armed, so those who are are killing those who are not. And if everyone is armed this will increase. How's about NO-ONE is armed, then no-one can shoot anyone.
(Oh bugger it. I'm wasting my time with this one...)
You did until very recently. Like within the last 30 years.
:What's your point?
:Oooppsss.. :Sorry... I was right. :You *are* mad.
No, you aren't looking at the long haul. It's only been within the last 30 or 40 years that they have been taking away the rights of british subjects to own firearms, just like in this country, your country is just ahead of this one.
It's also ahead of this one at the slow reduction of rights. Of course you didn't have as many as we did (at least spelled out in the constitution/Magna Carta) to begin with.
: :Don't you realise this is the CASE. NOT everyone IS armed, so those who are
Everyone IS armed, some are just more proficient with their weapons.
:are killing those who are not. And if everyone is armed this will increase. :How's about NO-ONE is armed, then no-one can shoot anyone.
I'm willing to give up my weapons as soon as the government does.
You have no clue what you're talking about do you? The British Constitution is an UNWRITTEN constitution. Citizens have all rights, except for those that are specifically not granted. Inteh US, citizens have NO RIGHTS, except those that are specifically mentioned.
Clearly the average Brit has more rights than does the average American.
You're forgetting the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be held to deny or disparage others retained by the people." IOW, it's explicitly _not_ an exhaustive list. Some people back in 1791 apparently felt a bill of rights was unnecessary because the government hadn't been granted the power to block their exercise (I'm thinking of Alexander Hamilton here especially).
<<Inteh US, citizens have NO RIGHTS, except those that are specifically mentioned>>
Not true. Ever hear of the 9th and 10th amendments? They state that just because the Constitution gives them certain rights, this does not imply that they do not have other rights.
--Daniel Gordon "Will there be beer?" "Beer is not permitted." "Homer no function beer well without." "Would you rather have beer or complete and utter contentment?" "What kind of beer?" -The Simpsons, "The Joy Of Sect"
We don't have handguns or semi-automatic centre-fire rifles, but we do have guns.
who are
increase.
Those who are legally armed are not the problem. You can't legislate for criminals. It's in the job description - you're a criminal, you disobey the law. Taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens has no effect at all! Since Dunblane and the Firearms(Amendment) Act 1997 there have been plenty of incidents involving illegally held handguns. They're still available and will continue to be available.
What an incredibly naive thought process.
Obviously. You've made up your mind and won't listen to anyone else. The media says banning guns is a good idea, so it must be. It's very easy to find a scapegoat, isn't it? Firearms owners have been scapegoated in exactly the same way that goths are being scapegoated now. I hear some schools have banned children from wearing black. Oh well, and in 1997 the government banned handguns. 57,000 shooters handed theirs in and it's made bugger all difference except that we're a good few steps closer to living in a total police state. Annoying isn't it? Being a scapegoat, I mean. Just hope that the government doesn't take it upon themselves to amend the Criminal Justice Act and make it illegal for goths to gather in public.
Not as naive as the one that says there are two types of people; criminals and 'law-abiding citizens'.. strait from Judge Dredd or something that is..!
Yes, I think we all are.. there's no battle to be won here.. is it just going to go on and on? Many people seem to think having freely available handguns is a bad idea.. some think otherwise. No matter how much statistical and logical argument you throw at the problem no one seems to be able to convince anyone else.. As for who is 'right' I suppose thats subjective, although I note that statiscally the anti-gun lot seems to have more self consistant arguments and the pro-gunners seem to resort to tantrums about there constitutions.
Yes it's rather silly, I mean anyone with a gun in their hand has the ability to kill with it, whether intentionally or by accident. The only way that this can be stopped is by eliminating one or the other or making sure they don't come in to contact.
Yes it does it spots accidental shooting at the very least. It also has the side effect of making guns more expensive on the black market.
But wasn't Dunblane the result of a legally held firearm at the time, he was a member of a gun club I believe. How many similar incidents have happend since ?.
Why?, it is a fact.
I think not.
How have you worked this one out, there haven't been a Dunblane type shooting since has there.
RRaLeX SEPTiC wrote in message news:7h9ib1$7ol$[email]...
I suggest you learn how usenet works to stop you making such an idiot of yourself in future. There is no sysadmin dimwit, this is usenet.
Also, you have no right to force people to stop discussing anything on usenet. It's a forum for public discussion. If you don't like a thread then simply killfile it so you don't have to see it but NEVER try to tell other people what they can and can't post. That's what the FAQ is for.
Oh yeah, there's a key on the left hand side of your keyboard called a "caps lock". Yours seems to be stuck on so please get it fixed.
SYStem ADMINistrator, generally the person who is in charge of a bulletin board or something.
Unfortunately, the person who pleaded to the Sysadmin doesn't realise that in Usenet, there *are* no "sysadmins" - the closest you can get is Moderators, except that this isn't a moderated group, so there's no one to kill the thread...
hmmm, maybe I should have read the thread before replying in such a flippant way to one of my old m8's who definately has a point, and will grind said point into you until you can only agree with him...
lets face it...
guns kill people, its what they were made for, not for sport or shooting cans off of fences, and even though these passtimes have gained great acclaim amongst the buck toothed white trash of the world, their original purpose is still what theyre best at.
can you say that you ~really~ want people to die, take the question seriously and dont let blatant immaturity or bull-headedness get in the way
if you answer yes to that, then you seriously need some professional help.
this post is not directed at anyone in particular, just in agreement with Covenant, and in complete opposition to the whole ethos of "you can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" which has been adopted by so many people....on both sides of the Atlantic.
(Now wait for the e-mails and the other posts showing how Crime has risen or dropped!)
Seems to be that diversionary tactics are the norm rather than a reasoned discourse on the logic thgat guns do in fact kill.
Still, that said, there *are* some folk on here that are from the US and are quite in agreement, no matter *what* some of the gun lobby would have us believe.
Mark wrote in message ...
flippant
Does Mark know me, or does Mark know me !! ; ' )
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
As the last cliffhanging episode of alt.tv.southpark came to an end, "Covenant" wrote:
I'm starting to wonder how much Mark knows you and in which ways there Cov. Does the gf know about him yet? :-P
SilverRaven <--posting humorous remarks whenever possible! Brought to you by someone who has a good enough sense of humor to know when something is funny and if you don't agree, off with your head! -- yes, that one.
Covenant wittered this piece of speech...I continue below it....
gees...leave for a few months and choas reigns out...wtf is going on....explain cov...!!(please)...who is mark AAARGGGGHHHH...too much pressure(yay for tweek) BTW who is the bearded woman sitting in the corner???(sorry..can't help but be wyrd)
You would find that many Americans (including myself) would share your opinion.
However, it really isn't that difficult to understand why you say what you do above: There are marked cultural and legal differences between here and the U.K. This is obvious. But it is the reason that some British people may not understand why some Americans insist on holding on to their guns.
I'm having similar discussions on a LOT of my NG's just now. On some the US-ers are in full agreement with me, and on others they feel as if I am attacking them..
But no-one has yet explained WHY it is so damned important that you *have your guns*...
Seriously though, there may have been a reason to have them then, but nowadays it's completely unnecessary, and it's really just *asking* for incidents like this.
And anyway, if Britain wouldn't have had a mad king at the time (demonstrated by the fact that on more than one occasion, British troops torched the American capital), then America would still be part of the Empire. As it happens, George refused to commit a sizeable army because in his opinion the colonies weren't important. So ner :P
The Anglo-French war in Canada probably didn't help, either.
Appreciate the comments, but let's not make this a UK v US thing.
Myself. I'm talking about guns and the fact they kill people.
Nothing else. I have not insulted anyone for *being american*. Although I have seen this creep in to the threads from the US side. it seems to me to be a fairly lousy justification to have guns.
I'm sorry if I offended anybody with my comments, but I do get upset when people imply that the country in which I live, was born and brought up in are, by nature, unfair and oppressive. I withdraw anything nasty I may have said :)
:I'm sorry if I offended anybody with my comments, but I do get upset when :people imply that the country in which I live, was born and brought up in :are, by nature, unfair and oppressive. I withdraw anything nasty I may have :said :)
All people/countries are "by nature, unfair and oppressive". Look at England's reaction in the Falklands, look at the US's reactions in Kosovo/Somalia/etc. Read history, people are STILL for the most part nasty, brutish and short.
Also, you should learn to cut out unnecessary parts of your replies. There is no reason to qoute the whole thing.
Oh, I don't know. I mean, Mac, Cossack, and Cobweb don't look too short to me... ;-)
You might consider getting your contexts right. Thomas Hobbes was arguing _for_ a fairly authoritarian government, IIRC, when he depicted people's _lives_ that way.
"...[C]onsider the earliest condition of humanity, without government or property, when we wandered as hunter-gatherers. Hobbes surmised that life was then nasty, brutish and short....Actually, that was all a projection of fears for the collapse of government authority over communities unaccustomed to doing without it, like the England of Hobbes during the Civil War....Like most social and political theory, the story Hobbes and his successors told was really unacknowledged autobiography." --Bob Black
If you go back and read the posts in this thread from the beginning, you will see that a lot of British people participating have thrown *many* insults, including throwing generalizations and making fun of an entire nation and its people. Which I have found a shame. I had hoped people were more tolerant and open-minded than that ...
: :If you go back and read the posts in this thread from the beginning, you :will see that a lot of British people participating have thrown *many* :insults, including throwing generalizations and making fun of an entire :nation and its people. Which I have found a shame. I had hoped people :were more tolerant and open-minded than that ...
Of couse it's fine for you to call all gun owners selfish and greedy, and to claim that they don't care about other people.
:Loccy... : :Appreciate the comments, but let's not make this a UK v US thing.
Too late.
:Myself. I'm talking about guns and the fact they kill people. :Nothing else.
That is exactly what they are designed FROM THE BEGINING to do.
:I have not insulted anyone for *being american*. Although I have seen this :creep in to the threads from the US side. it seems to me to be a fairly :lousy justification to have guns.
:*snigger* : :Seriously though, there may have been a reason to have them then, but :nowadays it's completely unnecessary, and it's really just *asking* for
If you seriously think that man has changed AT ALL in the last 1000 years, you are seriously deluded.
There is _just_ as much reason today for the average citizen to be armed as there was 200 years ago.
:incidents like this.
If ONE teacher had been packing, and been willing to use it, there would have been 2 dead instead.
:And anyway, if Britain wouldn't have had a mad king at the time :(demonstrated by the fact that on more than one occasion, British troops :torched the American capital), then America would still be part of the :Empire. As it happens, George refused to commit a sizeable army because in :his opinion the colonies weren't important. So ner :P
That, and 2000 miles of ocean was a _serious_ logistical difficulty.
Economic pressures were forcing Europe, and by extension it's colonies (the more developed ones anyway) towards democratic/repulic like governments with free market/capitalist economies, it was _going_ to happen. The only question was whether the rulers recognized it, and allows the evolution of markets to follow the course, or whether they fought it. Like all rulers all the time, they chose to fight. King G. is lucky, look at what happened in france a couple years later. At least G. kept his head.
Everyone's history is relevant unless you want to become an island of ignorant, self-centered, exploited, useless............ Oh, wait, I guess that's already happened. Never mind.
<<My old grammar school is older than most American historical events...>>
Older than the time when they figured out that the Anti-Establishment clause of the first amendment did *not* only mean that they couldn't favor one christian sect over another?
--Daniel Gordon "Will there be beer?" "Beer is not permitted." "Homer no function beer well without." "Would you rather have beer or complete and utter contentment?" "What kind of beer?" -The Simpsons, "The Joy Of Sect"
Uh uh. They didn't teach me that in school. It was an American tour guide in Washington who told me... And, at any point, did I say that it was during the war of independence? The point I was trying to make was that British troops, even after being booted out of the US have been the only ones to get anywhere near Washington and do any serious damage. To this day the British Army is one of the most well trained in the world, and back then it probably was the most powerful fighting force on the globe; it was simply used ineffectively.
We believe you. However, I have documented proof that you were in that big, round spacecraft when it decided to crap blue fire all over the building. Nice job on taking out the helichopper, too.
Did I ever tell you about my plan to make the Rocky Mountains play "The Star Spangled Banner" through the means of gratuitous nuclear firepower?
<<Personally I prefer being a "subject" than having schools turned into slaughterhouses.>>
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who give up essential freedom for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Daniel Gordon "Will there be beer?" "Beer is not permitted." "Homer no function beer well without." "Would you rather have beer or complete and utter contentment?" "What kind of beer?" -The Simpsons, "The Joy Of Sect"
Heh...... If I didn't have to muck out my Leige's horses and then polish his armour. Walk three miles to the well for water and then beg for half a turnip for my evening meal I would have laughed at that!
(If I could gain permission that is.)
Covenant. Verily, A Vassal With Many Tasks To Perform For His Master...
But you would not be having senseless massacres. Oh and it may have slipped my attention, but the British Empire has long since gone (with very few exceptions, some parts of the West Indies, The Falklands, part of Antarctica and some small islands in the Pacific) most of these countries now have independence thriving democracies and do not show a particular dislike of the UK (well apart from coming over and thrashing at cricket and rugby :), in fact they tend to hold association with the UK through the commonwealth.
In fact (and I am not really aware of it) but to do not school children have to pledge the oath allegiance at school etc. in some countries Certainly in the UK you do not have to show or pledge any loyalty to the Crown, country or government.
I don't have my gun for home defense. Hell, I don't even have any ammunition in the house. I own a replica model 1892 Winchester lever-action rifle, and will be purchasing a 12-guge shotgun and a pair of .45 caliber single action army revolvers as soon as I have the money for them.
Why?
Because I'm a Single Action Shooting Society member, and we have competition shoots. :)
I don't know if anyone could really explain it succinctly. As it's a cultural aspect, it is difficult to completely put in words for someone who has not grown with it. That doesn't mean one shouldn't try though ...
Well, there have been a lot of insults thrown around recently. British people posting about the U.S. this, the U.S. that, the Americans this, the American that. You are not going to get a very good reception if you start insulting people, that is obvious. I would expect the same if I began insulting Britain and the British people. Insults do not solve anything, and they only add to alienation, misunderstand, and contempt.
I cannot write on the whole of the U.S., because I obviously do not know what everyone thinks. So here's how I see it, one American in the masses of millions: People here have been used to having and getting nearly anything for quite a while now. You often hear America being called "The Land Of Opportunity" or "The Land Of The Free." Sometimes those are oxymorons, but ... The point is that people do not want things taken away from them. They wonder: Where will it end? What else may be taken away next? The Bill Of Rights in our Constitution provides for The Right To Bear Arms. Yes, this may have been referring to militias, and yes, it is *very* outdated. The U.S. is obviously not the place it was when that document was written. But people in our government have sworn to uphold that document, and protect it. And some people of the U.S. will twist and manipulate that document to keep what they have, and get what they want. It is a shame, but it is the truth. The Gun Lobby of the U.S. is very strong (the N.R.A.). They have an *extreme* influence. The people who would like to see guns banned are in the minority, but as I said in another post, at least we exist.
In some large U.S. cities, especially in the inner cities, people feel they *have* to have guns to defend themselves, because everyone else has one. They feel they need one to be able to live. I can understand this mentality, even though I consider myself lucky not to have to live in an area where these things go on (and they do not go on in all areas). But I have met and talked with people who face this everyday. And just a few miles away from where I live is where it happens.
Let's say for a moment, that by some miracle (and that's the only way it could happen, IMO) that there was a ban put on certain guns in the U.S. Do you (not you personally, but people out there as a whole) think that that would stop people from getting guns? Buying them? Using them? If people want something badly enough, they will get it, and they will use it. Or they will use something else. It's similar to when there was prohibition in this country. People *still* got alcohol, they still *made* it, they still drank it (though not *as* much of course, but it still happened, and passing an amendment didn't make it go away).
If you take a look at statistics in the U.S., you will see that crime has been doing down. Hard for people in other countries to believe perhaps, but it's *true*. And actually, up until what happened this past Tuesday, school-related incidents/killings had been going *down*. The city that I live in is no longer the murder capital of the U.S., because crime has been going down.
Back to why some people here in the U.S. want guns. They feel it's their right, and what they are entitled to have. And some of them just do *not* care about the greater good, they don't care about other people, they are selfish, and they are greedy. But some of them do care, and may just want a gun to go out hunting every once in a while. Or for sport shooting/ recreational uses. The reasons are varied. I obviously don't know all of them. I've never seen a gun IRL, I've never used a gun, I've never shot a gun. And I don't want to. I have no desire. And I'm not alone. The sad fact is there is nothing we can do but raise awareness, which has already been done and is being done.
Yes. Not everyone, like you say, but if they didn't already have free access to guns, would those kids have had any access at all? Where would they have got their weapons? Where would they have got the large amounts of money to pay for them? Wouldn't anyone have noticed (their parents, for instance)? They would be much more unlikely to have seen or fired a gun or know to use one. Not having immediate access to firearms makes events like this a whole lot more unlikely. Think of the number of innocent people that get killed in the US in *accidental* shootings and compare that to the almost zero numbers in the UK.
Actually, we had an incident just a couple of days ago in which an automatic rifle was used on some people in a bus queue. No one died. I don't know the circumstances, but it proves that you cannot absolutely enforce any law, no matter how strict.
Like a knife. I might remind you that knives have also been banned in England. This involved an amnesty on knives which resulted in a massive number of weapons being handed in to the police. This led to a direct decrease in knifings.
Or... a bomb. Ah. Bombs. See, bombs are dangerous and difficult to make. You can find out how to make them easily (the Anarchists Handbook tells you how to make plastic explosives. I know, I had a copy), the ingredients are easy to find and they are difficult to detect. The recent nailbomb incident in Brixton (which I am sure very few people in the US heard of) goes to prove that. However, it was set off in the middle of a crowded marketplace and resulted in... zero deaths. Bombs, unless constructed by and placed by an expert are very unreliable. If the person who set that bomb had had a gun, I am sure we would have had fatalities, not to mention all the people with guns in their bags who would start shooting back (this -is- Brixton we're talking about).
Actually, you can't kill some one with alchohol. Not directly, anyway. Also, it is far and away more easy to make than a gun and I expect one hell of a lot more easy to distribute. You will always have criminals and nutters, but the less chance they have of finding a way to kill someone, the better.
Okay... rifles for hunting. Shotguns for game hunting. Hand guns? Automatic rifles? These are anti-personell weapons. No more, no less. They are designed specifically to kill -people-. Why would anyone want to own one unless that is what they plan on doing?
I have fired a gun, on a firing range while I was in the Army Training Corps. I don't, however, wish to own one and have nether thought about joining a gun club for recreational purposes. I must admit that firing a gun was quite fun but I find the idea of actually shooting someone of even an animal quite abhorrent.
Let's turn these questions around for a moment. Why do you (and some of the people who have been participating in this thread) *care* whether the U.S. does anything about the gun problem?
That's good for you. But this type of procedure would never happen here. It just wouldn't. It may be a good concept, and it does work (as you tell me above). However, it is probably easier to enfore in a smaller country (such as the U.K.) than in a much larger one (such as the U.S.).
OK. You've now mentioned 2 incidents that happened that resulted in no one being killed. Does that mean it was OK for these people to do these things? I mean, no one got killed. But I am sure that some people got injured. It's the *intent*. Luckily, no one got killed in the incidents you cite, but someone probably will if those incidents happen again sometime.
Obviously. That wasn't my point. The point was that when something else was banned in this country, people still got a hold of it, and used it.
I have no idea. I don't know everyone here. There are people with sick minds *everywhere*.
Medusa wrote in message news:LFrU2.3969$[email]...
Because people are dying - horribly. Same goes for anyware in the world that happens. We care.
Size doesn't matter. There are more police per head of the population in the US than there are in the UK.
No, no events are "right" and nobody ever implied that. What they were trying to say is they could have been a lot worse if they'd happened in the US where assault rifles are freely available. Nutters exist everywhere, we can only try to limit what they are capable of doing by taking their tools away.
But it was a lot harder to do so. You won't be able to stop guns but you sure as hell can limit their availability and make someone think twice before getting one if they know they could spend the next 20 years as Bubba's cellmate.
Very true except in the UK we do everything we can to prevent them getting their hands on weapons whereas in the US they can walk into a store and buy them for next to nothing.
:That's good for you. But this type of procedure would never happen here. :It just wouldn't. It may be a good concept, and it does work (as you tell
No, it doesn't.
In most places in this country (the US) it is illegal to carry a concealed knife wider than your hand. It is also illegal to OWN a handgun in many of the larger cities (New York, Chicago, Washington D.C.). This hasn't stopped people from carrying both guns and knives.
:OK. You've now mentioned 2 incidents that happened that resulted in no :one being killed. Does that mean it was OK for these people to do these :things? I mean, no one got killed. But I am sure that some people got :injured. It's the *intent*. Luckily, no one got killed in the incidents :you cite, but someone probably will if those incidents happen again :sometime.
At least in the Nailbomb incident, the intent wasn't necessarily to kill, but to cause fear, and make the government look ineffectual. Like that is tough or something.
:Ack. Now that's scary.
You should try it some time. It is quite challenging, and fun.
two reasons. One: Humanitarian. Life is life, be it American or otherwise.
two: America has teh worlds largest propaganda machine. American culture pervades *everywhere* this includes gun culture. The longer (and stronger) the US's gun culture is around, the more likely it will be replicated in our countries.
Why do Americans need guns? It's both extremely simple and extremely complicated.
The founding fathers, despite their flaws, saw themselves as fighting against tyranny. They also saw themselves as fighting for liberty... a real fundamental sort of liberty. Now, cynics are going to boo and hiss about that one, but from what I've read of their writings, it's true to some extent. It's so true that they made a point to amend the Constitution to make sure it was included. The core idea is: in order for a well regulated militia to exist, people have to have a right to equip themselves with firearms. In theory, this was supposed to keep the leaders in check. In a country that promises individuals have the right to worship as they please and to speak their mind freely in print and demonstration, this is kind of important. That's the simple reason.
I'll have to simplify the complex reason a bit. Guns are extremely ingrained in American culture. When we fought you fellows in the revolution, your soldiers were absolutely amazed at what good shots most of our soldiers were. Your soldiers, although well trained, were not raised with a wooden stock and metal barrel in their hands. Ours were, and it showed. Britain had to allow the colonies to hunt for their own food, while in Britain it was a sport available only to the nobility and the rich folks they sold licenses to.
That was what allowed the gun to gain a real foothold in the U.S. Then, as Americans expanded West, there was no organized law for a very long time. Highway robbers, murderers, river pirates, all kinds of people could take advantage of plucky settlers trying to start a new life with their families. America pretty much had to expand much more quickly than law could be established in the territories. The gun was the great equalizer. As a result of that era, and the rugged individualism that it spawned is attributed (IMHO correctly, to a certain extent) to the freedom to carry guns. Now, some folks are going to boo and hiss at that assertion to, it's fine. I'm not arguing for guns or against them. It's just one of the elements at the core of the American *need* for guns.
Now, in a more civilized era, we're faced with a classic genie/bottle situation. There are several guns for each man, woman and child in the States. Outlawing them will not make them all suddenly go away. It will probably not even make them all that much harder to acquire. In fact, there's a distinct chance that the people who have the guns might actually revolt and overthrow the government. Then, we're back at square one... and I don't even want to think about the constitution that the gun fanatics would write.
:Yes. Not everyone, like you say, but if they didn't already have free access
Might I point out that there is a _total_ ban in the US on LSD, PCP, these chemicals are not allowed for _anything_, yet they are commonly available.
As long as there is demand, there will be supply.
:to guns, would those kids have had any access at all? Where would they have
How many pipe bombs have you ever seen for sale in a gun shop?
Do you have _any_ idea how easy it is to build a simple firearm? We're talking 13th century technology here.
:got their weapons? Where would they have got the large amounts of money to :pay for them?
Drug sales.
:Wouldn't anyone have noticed (their parents, for instance)?
If their parents had been bothered to actually pay attention to their children, this wouldn't have happened.
:They would be much more unlikely to have seen or fired a gun or know to use :one. Not having immediate access to firearms makes events like this a whole :lot more unlikely.
:Think of the number of innocent people that get killed in the US in :*accidental* shootings and compare that to the almost zero numbers in th :UK.
What do you mean by "accidental" shootings? Most of them aren't accidents.
:Actually, we had an incident just a couple of days ago in which an automatic :rifle was used on some people in a bus queue. No one died. I don't know the :circumstances, but it proves that you cannot absolutely enforce any law, no :matter how strict.
That proves it doesn't work.
:
:Like a knife. I might remind you that knives have also been banned in :England. This involved an amnesty on knives which resulted in a massive :number of weapons being handed in to the police. This led to a direct :decrease in knifings.
WHAT?
You're joking right? BANS ON KNIVES?
In the states, gun "buy back" programs have proved completely ineffectual at any reduction in crime AT ALL.
:Or... a bomb. Ah. Bombs. See, bombs are dangerous and difficult to make. You
No, they aren't. Neither difficult, nor dangerous. You are just ignorant.
:The recent nailbomb incident in Brixton (which I am sure very few people in :the US heard of) goes to prove that. However, it was set off in the middle :of a crowded marketplace and resulted in... zero deaths. Bombs, unless :constructed by and placed by an expert are very unreliable. If the person
Crap. Timothy McVeigh was hardly an expert, and he managed to kill one or two people.
:who set that bomb had had a gun, I am sure we would have had fatalities, not
You just mentioned an instance where an automatic rifle was used on people at a bus station where no one was killed.
Make up your mind (Ok, check with your local government representative, and have them tell you which one is correct).
:to mention all the people with guns in their bags who would start shooting :back (this -is- Brixton we're talking about).
:
: :Actually, you can't kill some one with alchohol. Not directly, anyway. Also,
Which goes to show your lack of imagination.
:it is far and away more easy to make than a gun and I expect one hell of a :lot more easy to distribute.
No on both accounts.
Alcohol takes quite a bit of energy, materials and time (as far as making commercial quantities). A simple "zip gun" takes less, and can be done in a small machine shop (this is for a fairly sophistictated zip gun, a simple one can be made in the alley behind a hardware store). :
No, we don't "Feel" it's our right, it IS our right, guareenteed by the same document that guarentees us our right to free speech &etc.
I'm selfish and greedy because I understand that there is nothing the police can do to protect me _before_ a crime is commited? Because I wish to be able to protect myself and my family from those who would take their rights and lives?
Ok, I'll be selfish and greedy, if you'll be a cowardly snivelling slave.
:Okay... rifles for hunting. Shotguns for game hunting. Hand guns? Automatic :rifles? These are anti-personell weapons. No more, no less. They are :designed specifically to kill -people-. Why would anyone want to own one :unless that is what they plan on doing?
Because there are times and places when certain types of people need killing.
Raise awareness of the fact that you have NO idea what you are talking about and no clue about the realities of the situation.
Fact is, in every state in this country where a shall issue concealed carry law has been enacted, violent crimes have dropped. Fact is, in none of those states have murder or shooting rates gone UP.
Those are stone cold facts.
:I have fired a gun, on a firing range while I was in the Army Training :Corps. I don't, however, wish to own one and have nether thought about :joining a gun club for recreational purposes. I must admit that firing a gun :was quite fun but I find the idea of actually shooting someone of even an :animal quite abhorrent.
I last shot a pistol about 2 weeks ago, for the first time in about 7 years. I plan on going again in the next couple days (now that I live in an area where the government isn't as afraid of it's citizen's as Chicago is of it's subjects).
Practice makes better, if not perfect. See, if I feel the need to shoot someone, I don't want to miss.
petro wrote in message news:250419991518577659%[email]...
It's strange that it should supriise you, but I guess I should be suprised...
Now lets see what possible reason could someone have for carrying a large knife or a flick knife around with them....
1/ in case thei hamburger wasa little tough and they couldn't chew it 2/ getting stones out of horses hoaves(sp) 3/ self protection against others carring knifes 4/ kniffing someone they don't like 5/ Injuring someone with an aim to taking their poccessions 6/ Getting sex by force 7/ Getting attached a a vicious loaf of bread a crustie one maybe ;-)
Please, if you can think of any reason for carring a large knife (in a city/town) please feel free to add it to my list.
I guess things are too far gone for that now.
Also,
I'd rather come face to face with a bottle of whisky than a large calibre automatic
Yawn, a play on words....
That document was produced so you could defend yourselfs against the nasty savage Red Indians that used to attack your towns after you build them on their sacred land killing most of the then current occupants.
I'll agree with that but I'd rather some moron with a chip on his shoulder wasn't the one to decide who kills and who gets killed, or a total free-for-all like it seems to be now.
Too bloody right you wouldn't want to hit an innocent by-stander would you?
Indeed. Which is why a small folding knife is fine in the UK under most circumstances, but a larger knife (the sort of thing you'd actually use in a fight) isn't. It's all a question of fitness for purpose . . .
...which brings this back around to full circle and the question of hunting/sport shooting guns (as opposed to "home defense weapons") as "fitness of purpose." I have a gun. I wouldn't dream of using it to harm another living thing. Why should I lose my sport shooting gun under a blanket gun-ban when its fitness for purpose is non-lethal?
You can sport-shoot with BB guns, air guns, and a variety of other guns that you couldn't kill someone with unless you really tried. Much like the knives - you'd have to be either remarkably good with a knife, really lucky, or take quite a while to kill someone with a penknife.
I have the most dreadful feeling it's got nothing to do with the photography for Fields of the Nephilim album covers..
Will this thread never end..? It's quite obvious that we're never going to break through the 'guns are good' mass media brainwashing barrier of our US cousines culture.. so the sooner this thread ends.. the sooner everyone goes back on to alt.gothic and leaves us to harp on about 'the good old days' and vodka enemas.. and slagging off MM of course..
All I need to do is slit some ones throat from behind, preferably near the jugular. Having said that, it is probably easier to stick them in the rib cage first to puncture a lung. That way the victim does find it very difficult to both struggle and scream. The massive reduction in the pressure differential in the chest cavity causes the lung to collapse......... You can do that with a pen knife rather than a carving knife, and the great beauty of a penknife is that it is so much easier to conceal than an 8 inch carving or hunting knife.
Aha, I hear you cry, when would you be close enough to do that?? Well, lets say you want to kill some one. In quite a few places it is quite easy to get next to someone without raising suspicion, for example the pub, a night club, the supermarket, a busy shop... The list is endless.......
There was a case about 6 or 7 years ago (I think) where the victim first had their lungs punctured, and then had their throat slit. The victim was a taxi driver, hence the killer was behind the victim, and the victim was further immobilised by the seat belt he was wearing. Needless to say the taxi was not moving at the time:-) The blame in that case apportioned to an SAS book, possibly Bravo Two Zero, or something like one of the many "Official SAS Training Manual" clones that are around.
The knives favored by people who are trained in lethal knife fighting usually have blades less than two inches long. If your opponent even sees that you have a knife in your hand before you slash his throat or put him into shock by washboarding his rib cage then you've pretty much failed. Surprise is EVERYTHING in knife fighting.
On 29 Apr 1999 20:16:28 GMT, [email] (Bob Norton) wrote:
Filipinos must be an exception then - they seem to favour blades upwards of four inches. OTOH that's the only knife style I've studied at all, so I'm not saying you're wrong in general.
And fear! Our TWO main weapons are FEAR, SURPRISE and ruthless efficiencyI'llstartagain.....
Filipinos, by and large, are crappy knife fighters. Too obsessed with flashy displays of balisong opening and machete waving. Any decent knife artist could gut one while he was trying to impress you.
FWIW. the CIA probably has the best knife instruction in the world. I've known several field agents whose knife fighting abilities left me in absolute awe. On the other hand, most of them are TERRIBLE shots.
Japanese Sai knives, Chinese Butterfly knives, even the western commando knife.. all have blades over four inches.. as do daggers, kukri's.. In fact, the only useful combat knife with a blade anywhere *near* two inches are throwing knives.. wich should be poison tipped anyhoo..
Erm.. I think your talking about assasination there, not combat.. And as you say.. given the element of surprise and sufficient training.. you could probably kill someone with a toothpick.. why use a knife at all? A two inch blade isn't much of an improvment over a well placed fingertip.
If you surprise and kill someone.. its not really a fight.. actual knife combat is actually quite complex.. most fighting knifes are designed in a similar way to swords in that they can be used to block and disarm an opponents attacks.
I'm talking about modern professional knife fighters (like you find in "intelligence" organizations, not traditional martial artists using centuries old techniques and equipment.
The reason that combat knives (including kukris) are the size they are is because they have about 20 other functions besides knife fighting.
I'm not quite sure what the line is between assassination and combat, other than the legal distinction. Both are murder, one has the taint of sanction on it.
I've never seen a 2" throwing knife. You'd have to make it out of lead or osmium for it to have enough mass to do anything.
In article , Simon Isaacs <simon@nospa msimoni.freeserve.co.uk> writes
I wasn't saying it was impossible. With enough pre-meditation and the right opening, you could probably managed to kill someone with just about anything. However, I would assume that you would accept that if someone is drunk and angry, and pulling a knife in the after pub fight, then a penknife isn't so useful. Likewise, trying to mug someone with a Swiss army knife is going to require more planning and effort.
I'm not claiming that banning knives/guns will magically end the problem of people doing bloody violence on one another, but I suspect it would cut it down quite drastically, and in fact, has done so.
In article , Simon Isaacs <simon@nospa msimoni.freeserve.co.uk> writes
I think you must have been reading the cheapo rip-off SAS Ninja Warrior Commando guides mate.
Even my half forgotten Biology O-level is enough to tell you that slitting someone's jugular isn't an effective killing technique, given that the jugular is a vein rather than an artery & so is liable to stop bleeding after a minute or two.
I think you were after the carotid artery.
But by the time you found it you'd probably be dead...
Incidentally, in Australia we have what they call 'regulated weapons' (as opposed to prohibited weapons like switchblades, semi-auto guns etc), ie objects that may have a legitimate purpose but that you can't just carry around unless you have a valid reason. Thus you can carry a large knife if you're on your way to go fishing, but not if you're going to a nightclub. Even walking around carrying a baseball bat can be considered carrying a weapon if you're not on your way to play some baseball.
Quite reasonable, as it brings intent into it. (Though on the unreasonable side, they tried to include clothing with 'raised, pointed studs' under this law many years ago (i was given a criminal conviction over a studded bracelet!!) until someone challenged it in the high court and had it thrown out).
If anyone on here lives near this lunatic. I'd be worried. Colorado's ain't over people. It's cause of people like this.....
petro wrote in message ...
Not "If I HAVE to shoot someone..."
As has been seen on this (these) NG's. This person has a short fuse, is quick to anger and quick to judge anyone against his precious guns as a moron and uneducated.
Be afraid. As long as people like this exist, it is not over for America, and that saddens me.
Yep so much more useful when people remain totally ignorant of firearms....When people are ignorant of firearms accidents happen. Go figure. And given how their parents didn't notice now that they had weapons how will making them illegal have changed that?? Its *already* illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to own a long gun and anyone under the age of 21 to own a handgun. Finally, given the amount of explosives the kids had, they didn't really *need* the guns.
Innocent?? Actually you mean innocent *and* ignorant people. Some of those innocents killed in gun accidents are caused by the ignorance of someone who has found a gun who was never taught that guns are dangerous because their parents, like you did thought it was so much safer for them to not know those kinds of things. As an aside the number of accidental firearms in this country has steadily dropped....It is not a growing problem. It is a "shrinking" problem as more people become aware of the dangers of firearms and the like instead of being blissfully unaware.
Don't know the circumstances?? How do you know it was an automatic rifle?? They are highly restricted in this country with proper and expensive licensing required. If the person did not own it legally do you think a gun ban would have stopped him?? I agree, though, that it does show that enforcement can be difficult. Considering the ease at which one can illegally obtain weapons a gun ban would be ever so difficult on those who already use weapons illegally.
What kind of knives?? How do people cut their veggies in the kitchen?? If you said with a "knife" then you can see how easily someone could still get a weapon.
Even in the hands of an expert if no one is around bombs are not as personally damaging all the time, but then again neither are guns. Shooting at moving targets is not exactly the easiest of things to do.
Ahhh, but making alcohol illegal gave rise to an entire legion of armed gangs trying to control the market who killed more in the name of profit than any alcohol had to kill. To make a gun all one really needs is a length of pipe, a wood block for a handle and a nail and a nail release mechanism. Instant zip gun. Hide away a nice supply of reloading tools and accoutrements and you can keep yourself in ammo quite nicely as well.
Hello...if you knew anything about the topic you were jonesing about here, you would know that automatic rifles are about as easy to come by in the US as dodos. Hand guns also can be used for hunting as well. Just because the brits only use rifles and/or shotguns for hunting doesn't mean they have it all.
Ooo nice loss of credibility in the last sentence there: Guns are made to kill people therefore why would someone own one unless they planned to kill someone....What a stroke of logic you have their. Obviously you are on the moral high ground...:P
Funny, but as a gun owner I *also* find the idea of actually shooting someone or even an animal quite abhorrent as well. One thing I find even more abhorrent is the thought of someone shooting or doing some other violent action to my fiancee when I am out of town on business and she is alone in our house without some kind of protection. Oddly, I have confessed that I doubt I would be able to take a life to protect my own life, but would have less doubt when doing so to protect someone important to me.
And as a human being in a free society you are certainly free to choose not to own or shoot guns. Just remember that it is *your* choice and people like myself are not some kind of undercover crazed psychopath just because you don't want to own guns.
: Ok Covnenant it is time for you to actually take a close look at the garbage you are shovelling. You continually abuse those who want to own firearms, even those who have intelligently responded to your drivel. Now you have the audacity to say that anyone is quick to judge about anything?? Your own position on this discussion was decided before you made your first post. Even those you asked for explainations of why people want to own the guns they own you have continually ridiculed and abused them. You don't want to learn anything you just wanted to find some people to give grief to.
As long as people like *you* exist it is not over for the world, because ignorance is present and will not go away. In the name of being clueful why not wake up a bit??
You want to see abuse..... Here's what I was e-mailed......
Oooooo; are you gonna tell my MOMMMY!?!?!? You loathesome british scuzz bucket; no wonder the u.s. rules the remains of the british empire. You're lucky you're 6000 miles away, or I'd gouge out your eye socket and skull fuck you to death.
How typical of someone who desires to government to rule his life to attempt to nark out someone who uses language he doesn't approve of; I hope you enjoy your future fascist government.
Feel free to forward my messages to io.com, their upstream provider and the president of the fooking united states; none of them give a shit if I use you for my verbal punching bag, you rotten little lump of dogshit.
(end of message)
So. Howe have I responded? Shouting and swearing? (Heh. Ironically I typed shooting there...) Throwing out imbecilic, pre-pubescent nonsense?
No. All I have *ever* asked was why there is the *need* for guns and why can it not even be *considered* that guns are a blight on society.
(Maybe you are confusing poosts? If NOT what did I reply to? And what makes it abuse?)
I am serious here.
Avatar. You really have me confused with someone else. I have abused NO-ONE ! SHOW me were I have!
What is wrong with not wanting innocent kids to be murdered in cold blood? That is the thrust of my points here.
I'd like some kind of reasoned reply to this. I dunno where the hostility in your post has come from.
Because we want to?? As someone who learned how to shoot in the boy scouts a long, long time ago and who was a member of his high school riflery team for a while, before it was disbanded due to lack of funding, I have been shooting since a small age. I find it enjoyable and interesting as a past-time, much the same way other people enjoy other sports. Trying to make you understand it if you don't have an interest in it would be akin to trying to convince you that a band you absolutely hate is worth listening to by someone else.
Perhaps if you, as a brit or human being for that matter, didn't continually ask the question with *have your guns* highlighted in some way as if we are mentally defunct you might get better results. The vast majority of american gun owners are responsible and safety conscious when it comes to firearms. The vast majority of gun violence in the America also has nothing to do with those legal owners, but instead a criminal element that is a sign of growing social difficulties in the United States.
The simple fact is that banning guns in no way serves any purpose to resolve the *real* problems with the United States society that lead to teenagers walking into school and attempting to kill as many people as possible. *That* is what needs to be resolved and I'm getting more than a little tired of these types of problems not being addressed while the gun control crowd pushes their agenda to a mourning public. Guns have been present in the United States since its inception. Now, all of a sudden we are having a lot of violence. Doesn't sound to me like the fact that guns are in the country is the reason behind that. Social repair and reconstruction is what is needed to stop the current trends of violence and lack of respect for other human beings that seems to be growing in the United States.
Actually the two boys killed 12 students and one teacher, not 25 students. That was an estimated number but its been confirmed that there were 15 deaths (including the two boys that did it)
Why should we ban guns because these sickos did what they did? There is nothing wrong with a responsible, smart, wary citizen possessing a firearm. I also don't think it was the parents' fault, TV's fault, etc. These kids made their own decisions and that's why they ended up the way they were. Nobody can stop a kid from doing what he wants to do. NOBODY.
The truth is (I'm just theorizing above), nobody knows what causes this kind of corruption in our youths. People didn't agree with them because they were different, they got tired of their shabby treatment, and decided on revenge. I'm not saying I support these vigilantes. I mean, who would?
And I'm not afraid to say, like most law-abiding gun owners, that if I was confronted with some suspicious persons one quiet evening, I would whip out a gun and blow them away. I support the theory (unlike many here) that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is an inanimate object. People think that they have power when they hold a gun; authority to do whatever they want. Those two youths in Colorado committed an act of brutal revenge with guns. Those are the kind of people that don't deserve to own guns (of course, they're youths anyway, so they CAN'T anyway).
I'm sure there's some guy, or maybe many, sitting at their computers thinking, "This guy is writing bullshit." That's your opinion. Whatever thoughts you have on guns and corrupt youths, share them. But don't criticize my opinions just because you don't agree.
�����������~��~����������������������~~
LeEsPaM � Some Guy
My alternate e-mail: [email] ! !
----------------------------------------------------------------
((insert that "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" quote here))...
[email] (LEESPAM) decided to put finger to keyboard on the 22 Apr 1999 22:49:38 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all like to know:
Then you'll support the legalisation of cannabis for those of us who aren't going out robbing people at gunpoint, seeing as you are so up on liberty provided one is responsible?
Being routinely treated like shit does have some effect.
So you would shoot someone purely because you *think* that they are acting *suspiciously*? And what does that consitute? Having long hair? Standing around at a street corner?
Clearly YOU should not be entitled to own a gun, because by your own admission you are trigger-happy.
so are thermonuclear weapons, consequently i suggest an amendment to the US constitution legitimising their use by anyone who wishes to possess one.
Does the concept of associativity mean nothing to you?
The ultimate purpose of a gun is to kill. Which bit of that do you not understand.
Which is the history of the america. People with guns deciding what happens. Or hadn't you noticed?
Given your earlier comments, you should not be entitled to own firearms either.
You also have no grasp of debate either. Don't criticise my opinions because you don't agree with them?!? Surely that is the main reason for criticising someone's opinions?!?
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: [email] (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace" - Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
Okay........... You are a gun owner, and you are responsible. I'll take that as a given...
But I would rather every law abiding, god fearing, gun owner, (as well as the morons), LOST access to his guns than than to have ONE single innocent kid shot dead.
That's my opinion
I wish I had'nt snipped all of your post now... You mentioned that if you say someone *looking suspicious* you would *blow them away*... What if they were lost? What if they were looking around for a landmark that might help them find their way back? And guess what... It's already happened..
An english guy, (couple of years back), got lost while walking around in the US. He approached someones door to ask for directions and the owner shot him THROUGH the door.
He died. The owner was aquited. Now, that makes NO sense to me.
The US has The Gun as part of it's culture, and things are getting worse and worse. It's time for an amputation.
I heard, and this is true, one commentator say that this crime had to do with the decline in bowling leagues. that is exactly what I heard the guy say on one of the cablew news outlets- bowling leagues.
the best part about that, Dylan Klebold was reportedly and avid bowler. I am not making any of this up. bowling.
The reason Columbine High hits so close to home is the "school issue." During our teenage years, each one of us has felt alienated, each one of us--alone. Or perhaps you were in the popular groups at school and you always felt safe in your circle of friends. Either way... this shooting forces you to look at who we really are and what effects our actions have on others.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not products of our society. They were troubled young men. They couldn't handle their F%$#ing emotions. South Park, Doom, and Marilyn Manson did nothing to feed the flames. Those things were normal youthful indulgences. We all come to forks in the road in life. Whether we decide to do good or prepare for a super suicide mission at our high school is up to us.
We are the most intelligent species on this planet and can do what we wish.
I think what they did was wrong. I tear up thinking about families sending their children off to school and never seeing them again. I remember how I-- being a good school girl--used to spend my lunch hour in the library. I shudder thinking of the fear the library victims must have felt.
But life goes on. People will always be crazy. I choose to continue to laugh and love. And watch "South Park" till my side splits.
And yes Cimmerii, I think Christians are big ol' hypocrytes. None of us are saved until we get the "I am above you" feelings out of our heads. That's what pissed off Dylan and Eric enough to kill.
Yes. And for me , I don't like the answers I'm getting.
Nonsense. We're all products of our society. None of us were raised in a vacuum. Things that affect us directly and indirectly, play a part in how we relate with the world.
Perhaps. But if one of them wrote a diary planning how he was going to kill people on Hitler's Birthday (starting one year ago), I think that they had a fair grasp of control, by giving away few clues as to what they were planning.
We don't know what 'fed the flames', not yet. Maybe we'll never know.
True. But I wonder what led them to make that decision.
Sadly, we usually do what our hearts tell us (sad in this instance anyway).
We're all hypocrites. That's how we deal with the contridictions of life, I guess.
Billy Clinton has made a few attempts to curb gun usage in the States but all have failed, quite miserably, because they have rights in their constitution, which are pretty much impossible to change. In the UK, it's damn near impossible to buy a gun; you need a license and, even then, they don't hand those out to anyone. In the States, buying a gun is as easy as buying a tennis racket and you can pretty much pick them up anywhere from the age of 5 upwards. The National Rifle Association of America even has Charlton Heston promoting them "Guns are not the problem. It's the criminals using them."
So now the USA is in an uproar and the one thing they can't do is blame firearms so they *have* to look elsewhere. Music has been blamed for events similar to these as far back as the Beatles' "Helter Skelter" album, then came Black Sabbath and they even put Judas Priest in the dock. We have Marilyn Manson here in the UK, in fact, they're pretty popular all over the world and yet events like these happen more often in America than anywhere else. The *only* thing that makes the USA different from every other country in the world is their laws on firearms and it's obviously the primary cause for events like these, but will they do anything about it? No.
And now we have Billy Clinton promoting "Family Values", because his hands are tied by the American public, and it's just about all he can do. Somebody over there needs to wake up and smell the coffee; we can all see it, why can't they?
I just love it when people can't sense an element of humor.
I just love it when you can be well-educated, successful in your chosen career, elected to the highest office in your nation yet because you come from a particular state and speak with its accent people will still think you're just a hick.
Chris Seamans wrote in message news:kLoV2.179$[email]...
You forgot to add 1995 Britain bans guns 1995 - 99 gun crimes drop to almost non-existent levels. Massacres such as the one that just happened in Colorado stop completely.
gain more respect if you dropped the south park slang. The fact is that nutters will always find a way to kill someone whether they have guns or not. After all if you make guns illegal, the very fact that a criminal is commiting illegal acts kinds of gives the impression that they are not particularly bothered if they are breaking the law!
: It is interesting that because cars were designed for another purpose, but kill people its all OK. But since guns are designed to kill people, even if they are used for another purpose it is not OK. Killing is killing and I find someone who runs over someone while drunk behind the wheel as culpable as someone who points a gun at a person and kills them with it. I do not see how the instrument of the crime has changed the outcome of the result in any way, regardless of the purpose for which the car or the gun were made. Both effectively kill people everyday in the United States....Both deaths were caused by someone's inappropriate use of the insturment at hand.....
The car vs. gun argument reminds me a lot of the illegal drugs vs alcohol argument. It is amazing how many people are admantly opposed to any controls on the consumption of alcohol, but then are totally against legalizing drugs in anyway. ITs funny, because all the reasons that site that drugs are bad apply equally to alcohol. Same works in this case. To those who claim that any murders are too many murders, how come the tools of vehicular homocide are less to blame just because they are not originally built to kill people?? Doesn't change the fact that they do....
plato would be upset with your assessment of a gun's primary purpose. a gun's telos is not "to turn a living thing into a dead thing". a gun's telos is to cause small, heavy, lead objects to reach very high rates of speed. that is all. nothing more. any connection to killing is a _use_ of a gun, not it's purpose. big, big distinction.
OK then, Mr deep thinker. What is the purpose of those nippy little bits of lead that zing out of the end of a gun's barrel? Don't tell me. They're meant to put holes in bowling balls from distances of ten meters and above.
D'you think that all those people that have refined guns down to their modern, highly efficient form were thinking "If I make this improvement, it'll project small heavy bits of lead faster. This might make it easier to use this object to kill, but that doesn't matter because that's not why I'm improving this gun - I'm doing it to bring the gun closer to it's platonian ideal." Or d'you think that they wanted to improve the gun precisely because the improvements made it easier to use to kill people?
that's beyond irrelavant. misuse or abuse of a tool does not then change the purpose of a tool. knives are sharp and slender. is the primary purpose of a knife to kill? no. the primary purpose is to cut things. a lead pipe is long, thin, and very heavy. is the primary purpose of a lead pipe to kill? no. the primary purpose is to carry fluid.
Your argument is clearly some warped form of reduction ad absurdiam, which sadly cannot be used here.
Because the cutting action of a knife is required to (for example) prepare food.
Because the fluid it carries is required to be in some other place, in order to (for example) do the washing up.
Please explain to me what the accelerated piece of lead that is produced by a gun is needed for.
Of course it is. Things are not designed simply because someone feels like it - they are designed with a specific task in mind, and they have come up with a tool to perform that task.
Now, taking a reasonable guess, why would someone want a lump of lead accelerated to the kind of speeds that a gun is capable of? What task did the inventor have in mind as the end product of the action of his gun? Not the direct action of the gun, but the end product of its action, in much that same way that water coming out of my tap is the end product of piping, but it is not the pipe alone that magically makes the water arrive - it requires a pump, if nothing else, and there's usually a tap associated with it somewhere. What is the end product of a gun and assocaited appartus like bullets?
Not all knives are either sharp or slender. We've got various butter knives at home that aren't. I've got a penknife in my pocket that's both, but useless as a fighting knife - it's only about an inch long and far too fiddly. Certain knives are designed for fighting, and it's bloody obvious which ones they are.
Knives are designed to cut, but not in all cases to cut people in a hostile situation. Lead pipes are designed to carry water. Firearms are designed to wound or kill animals, including humans. Refusing to admit that they are more hazardous items doesn't do your case any credit.
you're still attaching intent to design. a gun is not designed to wound or kill. it's designed to fire bullets. ^
now, a laser scoop is designed to _help_ that gun hit a desired point, but even that _still_ doesn't necessitate wounding, killing, or even organic, living objects.
here's a good example: the biathalon. skiing and shooting. olympic athletes in this sport use a very particular kind of gun. most likely (i'm not 100% certain) designed specifically for _their_ purposes. what are their purposes? to hit a target after skiing in the cold for hours. those guns will never (most likely) be aimed at a living breathing thing. ever. but it's still a gun.
yes, i'm quibiling semantics. but with good reason. misuse of terminology in this case leads to legislation. the primary USE for many guns may be to wound or kill, but that is not their primary purpose. there IS a difference there, and it's significant if you're discussing legal issues. ~ clockwork.jhimm
You wrote something after I wrote something in a previous thread. I'll reply here, instead.
Previously, clockwork.jhimm wrote:
What is the primary design purpose of a battleship? A tank? A mortar? A bazooka? I could make the same arguments as you have that none of these items are designed to deliver lethal payloads to animate or inanimate objects, depending upon their nature, and I would still be talking a load of old guff.
But lets try a change in tactics (this argument is beginning to stagnate). It seems to me that, if guns are not meant to kill creatures, a non-lethal alternative can be found. Hows about if we make projectile-firing guns illegal and, instead, devise a gun which fires an accurate, medium-powered (as in, non-eye-damaging) laser beam pulse, instead? We can then construct targets with a photo-chromatic layer which would change colour wherever the laser pulse hits. The net result would be to allow all those gun-toting sportsmen out there to continue their fun without the remotest chance that their toys could be used for lethal purposes.
Oh yeah. Wind factors. Well, we can also put a small, onboard radio receiver on the gun which would contain a mini computer. It would receive wind velocity information from a detector on the course and alter the attitude of the internal prism accordingly, thus accurately simulating the deviation from the norm that the wind would produce. The same computer can also operate a passive laser-range finder which would be used to compute the equivalent decrease in altitude of a bullet travelling the same distance.
The entire setup would almost definitely cost more than today's rifles but, in the long run, the amount of money you'd save through not having to purchase insurance, licenses or bullets would mean that it would be more economical, too.
The above items are definitely within the technological capabilities of today's inventors.
Sound good to you, jhimm? Are you in favour of banning projectile hand weapons if a suitable alternative can be found? Or are you just a hypocrite?
if you read through all my posts on this subject you will find that i have not landed on _either_ side of the fence in regards to banning or not banning guns. so, your accusations are a bit unfounded. all i have been attempting to correct on this point is this: the term "primary purpose" was being used, repeatedly, when the term "use" should have been used. a gun can be used to kill or wound. but that is not the objects primary purpose. it may even be it's _primary use_, but it is still not it's primary purpose. this may seem trivial, but it isn't. why? because the subtle difference in wording gets the foot in the door when generating gun control law.
now, i'm not necessarily against gun control. i'm just against passing laws for bad reasons.
personally, the only reason i'd ever want to fire a gun, is because i'm fascinated with fire and explosions. i flick lighters and light candles just to watch the flame.
so, lazer tag just wouldn't be the same. does that justify guns being legal? i doubt it.
i am not so arrogant as to presume to have all the answers.
Ahhh, a fellow Devil's Advocate. Apologies for filing you incorrectly.
Semantics, my dear boy. You're clouding the issue. Please stop.
I could be mistaken but I don't think we were attempting to draft new laws, here. As such, I think your quibbling is unreasonable.
See above.
You should get out more.
Not fair. It'd be so much more fun if you did.
Out of interest, do you type with a blindfold on or do you have a nervous twitch when your fingers get too near to the enter button? Oh, and your shift key appears to be broken.
semantics are the entire crux of my post. it's not clouding the issue, it's forcing people to construct more accurate arguments for their position on the issue.
speaking poorly, when dealing with legislation, results in loopholes and/or overly strict policy.
in this particular case, misuse of a term like "primary purpose" can be the difference between (hypothetically) a rousing speech which rallies congress to pass a bill, and a rather lackluster one, although more accurately stated, using the term "primary use" which does not carry nearly as much weight in meaning.
i could be mistaken but i'm fairly sure a rather hefty set of legislation just walked from the white house to congress, no?
:P~ that was pointless and childish.
o gee, it's the i-can't-find-holes-in-his-reasoning-so-i'll-poke-at-how-he-posts technique.
With very few exceptions, the firearms that are available are optimised as weapons, rather than sport equipment. The former demands things like a magazine carrying at least several rounds, whereas a target pistol or rifle can just as usefully be a single- shot device. There _are_ firearms which aren't designed to harm, but they're very rare. They're not the ones we're really discussing, and FWIW they're not affected as much by gun control laws.
It doesn't necessitate it, but the design purpose of the device it's attached to remains unchanged.
IIRC a bolt-action rifle. These are still, I believe, legal in Britain (with the appropriate licence) because they're believed to be designed for a legitimate purpose. They differ in their construction from the more heavily regulated weapons. A rifle, of course, is still a device developed for hunting and (particularly) warfare, but these ones aren't optimised for the latter.
Understood. And you're quite right. But the situation as it exists is that the weapons people actually have are not generally designed for target shooting - they are deficient in some respects and over-specified in others. Their designs don't make sense if that's their primary purpose.
Sure it is. Cutting things serves a purpose. Transporting fluids serves a purpose. Sending little bits of lead flying (unless it's a tiny spaceship with tiney men ala mass driver) serves no useful purpose. Therefore it is a means to and end, not the primary end itself.
Oh for fuck's sake. The vast majority of firearms owners in this country keep guns for target shooting, not for killing people. 57,000 handguns were confiscated following Dunblane. If the only reason to own a firearm was to kill people, don't you think we'd have seen a significant decrease in the population before now?
I'm sorry, but relative to the population of the world, firearms do not kill a significant number of people per year. And yet kitchen knives, specifically designed for something else entirely, cause several times the numbers of deaths per year that firearms do. The main reason for owning a kitchen knife is not (usually) to kill. Shooting is statistically the safest practised sport in the UK. My point is that for the small number of firearms-related incidents, tens of thousands of people legally own firearms in this country (UK) which are never involved in any illegal incidents. What happened in Hungerford, in Dunblane, in Colorado, in all other similar and equally tragic shooting incidents, was terrible and should never happen again, but I don't think we should lay any blame where it isn't due.
Basically, whatever the extenuating circumstances, these children died at the hands of other children. If you want to go a bit deeper - the Trench Coat Mafia kids were ostracised and taunted at school, so you could blame the other kids, or the school system for its negligent attitude towards bullying. You could blame the parents for not bringing the children up properly, or not paying enough attention. You could blame the people who supplied the kids with their guns, because that was an irresponsible and thoughtless act. You could carry on writing this list and adding people to blame, and when you run out of people to blame, you could blame an inanimate object such as a gun or an abstract concept such as gun law. But a person who intends to commit an act of terrorism or murder or mass homicide, etc etc, will do so even in the absence of a gun. You can take the blame further and further away from the individual. See how easy it is?
Depends on what you call significant, I think more are killed per year than are with nuclear weapons.
No they don't unless you have figures to prove it of course.
What a lot of crap!, where do you get your stats from.?
IIRC Even football of all things has less deaths per year. How many popel go shooting (UK) on a saturday......? How many go to football?
So if it was such a tragic accident why has someone been charge with selling a gun if there're not considered dangerous, I think he's got 6 years for it.
If the guns they'd got were even more difficult to obtain then no one would have died. If it'd been in the UK the chances are htey wouldn't have been able to afford a gun, due to market forces/availability.
Maybe making people resonsible for their guns would be a minium measure.
yes but you can't go on listing the impliments of their death can you.
Oh dear, guns don't kill people....
So why didn't they, the fact of the matter is the gun was relitively easy to get that's why it was used.
yep T'was the gunb that was what the weapon was nt a stick of wet celery.
I have to agree with you on that one. But it's irrelevant.
times
I apologise, I meant to type 'knives', not 'kitchen knives'.
As a _sport_, football has a higher injury rate. And more people _practice_ the sport of shooting than that of football.
thousands of
shooting
I didn't say it was an accident. I didn't say guns aren't dangerous. Neither statement would be true.
died
the
would
been
This is true. I didn't say US gun laws were ideal. But then, neither are UK laws and it's the application of the law that fails most of the time rather than the law itself. The children should not have had the guns by law. So the law, if correctly applied, would not have allowed the shootings to happen.
was
measure.
Yes, people should be responsible for their guns.
No. I am not debating the weapon used.
abstract
I would never repeat such a tired cliche, even though I believe it.
the
easy
They made pipe bombs too. Without the guns they'd just have used the pipe bombs and probably caused many more deaths.
As for sticks of wet celery, like I said before, I'm not debating the weapon used.
April speak softly...and carry a big stick of wet celery
I'm not to sure it is, we've (World that is) has invested much research and resources in to things that help common,cold not many die for it, even HIV compared to the total killed by guns but efforts are still made.
OK but first you'd have to get some idea of the number of knives in a country and then divide it buy the number of killings with that type of knife... See how the mathamatics come out.
I doubt that in the UK. But even so those that injure themselves or others accept the risk they take. Someone inocenty walking down the road is highly unlikely to be stuck down and killed by a football injury intentional; foul or not.. Can the same be said of guns?
A friend of mine plays football at the local leisure centre, he's always getting injured. Someone was shot at in the telephone box just ouside the centre a few weeks back. If I go on to the pitch when there's a game on I have the chance I can become injured my choice. I'd like to be able to use a phone box with the risk of beinnng shot but it appears that isn't my choice.
Yes but the law regarding weapons that are used to kill people are far more relaxed or avoided than they are in the UK, I would have thought that would give a clue to the problems. Unless your saying it's not the guns that kill people in which case it must be the Americas themselves have something serious amiss in the grey matter between the ears. (Having had 2 USA flatmates and one USA girlfriend) I didn't find this to be the case.
I think you agree there is a problem somewhere I could understand it if the numbers of guns and gun deaths weren't coralatable but they are. I really don't see that the average American is anymore murderously intent than the average Brit, the onlydifferance I can see is the availibility of the weapon, especailly in the heat-of-the-moment.
Would they have used the bombs without the guns though?.
You're getting me excited now ;-) Bring out the amusingly shapped turnip.
But having a gun makes it far easier to kill a large number of people in a short time. Bombs are OK but not everyone has the know-how to make one. A knife is limited and any moron can aim and pull a trigger.
Sorry to disappoint but I think strangely shaped turnips are more Baldrick than Yorick :)
And lamb Bhuna and Strongbow is more my scene ;)
April
'Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that but not with all those flies and death and stuff.' -- Mariah Carey
Sorry to disappoint but I think strangely shaped turnips are more Baldrick than Yorick :)
And lamb Bhuna and Strongbow is more my scene ;)
April
'Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that but not with all those flies and death and stuff.' -- Mariah Carey
And have the know-how to build a timer/detonator/casing etc? I don't think so.
To repeat an earlier poster:
Guns in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defence. Kellermann, A., New England Journal of Medicine, 1986
When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes. Kellermann, A., Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. Kellermann, A., New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold. New England Journal of Medicine, 1992
Proven facts. Still think having a gun in the home is worth it?
Alright, now we've got some statistics and citations. Anyone know if these can be found online anywhere (hopefully not just carefully chosen excerpts on handguncontrol.org or whatever) because I've got some questions.....
People who are raped are most often raped by someone they know. People who are murdered are most often murdered by someone they know (or, mosre likely, the jealous spouse/partner of the person they're sleeping with). Children are most likely to be physically/sexually abused by someone they know, usually a stepparent. For this to work as eveidence for banning guns, one has to A>prove that "someone you know" and "persons killed in self-defense" are mutually exclusive categories B>prove that "someone you know" who was killed wouldn't have been killed otherwise. Jealous spouses can also use poison, lead pipes, rope... C>this statistic offers no indications where a gun may have been effective in "home defense" without actually killing someone, ie when someone was wounded, chased off, or stopped and held until police arrived.
If this is to mean what you want it to mean, it would have to say "When someone is home and owns a gun which is kept in the home..."
Very badly phrased. If you want to properly indicate that a gun in the home will somehow magically lead people in that home into killing others in the home, you have to first eliminate situations where the gun was purchased after the decision to commit murder took place. Presummably these people would have also murdered, but with other methods.
Whatever. Again, you have to eliminate the occasions where the gun was purchased after the decision for suicide was made, because it seems logical to assume these people did not think "well, I'll kill myself if I can get a gun, but otherwise it's too much of a bother" And also supply some indication that these other people would not have killed themselves if there hadn't been a gun in the house. I postulate that a society is going to have a certain number of suicides, and if guns are readily available they will account for a large percentage of them, and if they're not then some other method will be just as popular--though perhaps not as effective.
These last two bits of info could possibly reliably indicate that the presence of a gun in the home is indicative of someone with murderous or suicidal intent. They do not indicate that the murder or suicide would not have occurred if the gun hadn't been in the house.
My ass. Are these articles online? Is A. Kellerman a GP, or a social scientist? Does he REALLY need to own a big dog? It means thee's 43% more of a chance that I'm gonig to step in dog poo when I go by his house for tea.
I didn't actually find the articles themselves, but plenty of sites pointing out the flaws in the study in the first place...
http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm has some interestined commentary on the subject and the names and locations of some other places to look for information.
Overall, after Kellerman's study was published, it was pretty much completely discounted by just about every noted name in the field of criminology. His methods were weak, his samples insignificantly small and most importantly: He expected that by researching homes where homocide occurred, which usually involved some previous criminal background and alcohol and drug abuse that a clear and concise picture could be created that would be applied to *all* households that own guns.
:
:
This figure included: Unjustified homocides: murder, suicides and accidental deaths and linked it against those homocides which were performed to stop a crime. The biggest hole in this number is that the murders, suicides and accidental deaths accounted for were not predominantly gun related. Furthermore, no concurrent research was done to justify if *any* of the suicides, murders or accidents would have happened if a firearm was not in the house. Finally this statistic only measures actual deaths and in no way indicates or denotes how many times firearms are used to stop crimes *without* resulting in the death of a perp.
:
This is another one of those wonderful magic numbers. The problem is that overall numbers were used to compare against the number of firearms used. No differentiation was made to divide up those homes with firearms and those homes without firearms to make up the total number.
:
: Again, another hole: Those homocides that increased did *not* necessarily occur with a firearm. Again, given the bias of investigating homes that already had difficulties, and criminal issues involved this is also hardly any real indicator of what happens in the typical home of a gun owner in the US.
:
: Once again, this number is skeewed to show a dramitc number, but once again the majority of the suicides recorder were *not* caused by firearms. Also, again no study was maintained to determine if any of those suicides by firearm would have happened with or without the guns being present.
That is what those numbers were meant to do. Kellerman opened up a can of worms with his study and basically took it totally on the chin. His study was full of so many flaws that it never had a chance of showing *anything* in any real light.
:
I think the comments above, and any other comments that can be found in casual searches of the net looking up Kellerman and the NEJM will show that these are anything *but* proven facts.
Of course some groups like Virginians against gun violence have all of these direct quoted lines on their web page. Nice to see that people only really look just so far for their evidence and proof. If I don't see similar figures in multiple similar studies then something is wrong. There are too many studies that effectively show the opposite position of Dr. Kellerman that are *well* documented and supported in their findings.
Actually, got any URLs for the other sites? www.i2i.org isn't exactly as non-partisan as I'd like...though most of the criticisms from the Kopel piece were exactly what I expected given the sloppy wording of the statistics.
Of course perhaps the most telling bit from www.i2i.org was: "Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In fact, in the "43 to 1" figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths. (For gun deaths in all places, not just the home, suicides account for about 2/3 of the total.)"
You know I don't know you said this: maybe Bloodstone:
blah blah...then he said,...
yeah yeah yeah whatever..this whole string is getting nasty because there is all this "keeping up with the Jones" crap... and too damn anti-british and anti-american or anti-freakin-somthin..duh? this kind of competition starts shit??? Does it not,? in a MACRO..do we really think we are just a MICRO?... psuedo intellectual debate or not..we ALL have problems....America has a HUGE problem with violence and really doesn't have a clue how to stop it. There are neighborhoods in our country that NO ambulances nor the police will answer a call because they know they will never come out...no shit sherlock..how can you deal with lawlessness....Education?..it's its own culture embedded...you have your culture we have ours...at some point its reduced to brain chemicals more than genetics. What then..Media? that seem to be the piss poor god that everyone listens to? Statisics is Media...music is Media...Politics was the original Media...even Fashion is a kind of Media that somehow lumps..
Therefore, it really has nothing to do with Our "Constitution"...the constitution is merely an excuse when all the other law loopholes have failed...it has more to do with the childs book about the....ta da...> Gingerbread Man. "hey hey hey I'm the gingerbread man...catch me> catch me catch me if you can.."
There are always two systems...and I'm sure it's the same anywhere..we are talking about humans and the way they operate. One that's proper and one that works.
Americans tend (***Warning***total freakin glittering glam goth generalization here) to do something only when they don't get their way....then they get their lawyers, accountants, and clergy to find a way to excuse and reduce responsibility of the action...the constitution is the last restort. And hey! I love my country right or wrong. OJ Simpson is a HUGE example second to Clinton.
Anna who's not really that cynical in day to day life... :-{
and lets not forget for a gun to work you have to load it and point it and shoot it you know that was how i heard guns work but lets get the band aid out and try fix the massive gaping bleeding wound with a butterfly band aid i wonder if O.J. used a gun if it would have been the gun owners fault in that respect i say damn the knifeowners elitist bastards Clay Young wrote in message news:[email]...
35 of those are suicides and as the Canadians found out, people who want to do themselves in, will generally substitute one mode of self destruction for another.
Kellerman only counted cases where the perpetrator was shot and killed.
I've drawn as a civilian 3 times in as many decades. In each situation, the badguys bugged out. In those three situations, I'm morally convinced that I'd have been either seriously injured or killed had I not had a gun in my possession.
Now, were those three situations I was in not considered effective defense because I didn't kill anybody?
The last time was a couple of years ago when my Wife asked me to do a night deposit at an ATM. A couple of guys decided to try a strong arm robbery. They blocked the ramp with a pickup truck and ran up on me until they suddenly discovered that I had a small Beretta in my hand and a thumb that was sliding the safety catch off. (I carry condition one-- always.) When they saw that, they turned around, got back into their pickup and left.
Seems to me that this was an effective defense, but Kellerman doesn't count it at one because I didn't kill anybody.
At one time, the most commonly used instrument in homicides in France was a fireplace poker. (See Pistols, Revolvers and Ammunition by Jan Stevenson and Michel Jossrand.)
Kellerman is no social scientist and criminologists have pointed out that his methodology has huge holes in it.
The story on Kellerman is as follows. The guy was listening to the radio when he'd heard that Marvin Gaye had been shot by his father in an arguement. Kellerman recalls that his thought at the time was that , "this is crazy, we've got to do something about this".
So, instead of doing science by collecting data and letting the chips fall where they may, Kellerman started this thing with a personal agenda in mind and cooked the books to produce a pseudoscientific rationalization for his desired end result. (Kellerman was interviewed some years ago by US News and World Report, which is where I got the story.)
Contrast that with the research done by Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University who doesn't like guns, doesn't own one, and yet produced a study which did provide an honest proof that guns do more good than harm, and his study did include nonlethal defenses like mine where display of a gun was enough to terminate the attack, without killing anybody.
Kleck is an intellectually honest guy who really doesn't like weapons but who does prize truth. Kellerman is a propagandist who prostitutes science in pursuit of a political agenda.
Oh really??? IS this just target shooting, or biathalon and hunting as well??? I find it hard to believe that there are less injuries in shooting (people walking on to the range etc...) than say Bocce, or golf.
Or even if we assume the risk of injury to be low, surely it is lower for archery, where you have the same risk of injury, but those injuries cause must less damage.
The risk of injury in shooting is very low because of the extremely stringent safety precautions - more stringent than for almost any other sport. I don't know what the stats are for archery, and so can't comment. And yes, I'm just referring to target shooting. Biathlon and hunting are different sports entirely, for which, again, I don't know the stats.
Target shooting, for what? Staying in practice for what? What are
those targets shaped like? What exactly are they aiming for on those
targets? To what end would someone buy a firearm and practice using
it over and over--merely to get better at practicing it? How
profoundly naive.
Guns were not created for target practice. If target shooting were
the end-all of owning a gun, then why own a gun in the first place
when there are so many less expensive and less controversial
alternatives? There's always archery, knife-throwing, dwarf-tossing,
or rock-heaving for that matter. The only reason someone practices
shooting at targets is to get better at shooting at something living
that they want to subdue, incapacitate, or kill. Insisting that guns
are meant solely for target practice is like suggesting a theater
troupe endlessly rehearse their play and never schedule for a
performance, simply for the hope of getting better at rehearsing.
What people are currently doing with those guns does nothing to
alter the purpose for which those guns were created. I could carve a
manifesto in wet cement with a butter knife, and that doesn't change
the fact that it was designed to slice through butter.
--Rev. Ckriztchunne Andalusia
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." --Eeyore
The targets are shaped like bullseyes (little ringed circles).
I am aiming for the 10-ring at the center
Hopefully someday I can win something at a shooting competition.
Actually, the only reason *I* practice shooting at targets is to get better at shooting at TARGETS in competition. I have no intention whatosever of using my rifle to shoot at something living that I want to subdue, incapacitate, or kill.
Don't presume to speak in absolutes when it comes to the motivations of other people. Thank you in advance.
Do you also advocate the right for private citizens to bear nuclear arms?
After all, a nuke's telos is to cause a massive fireball, followed by a shockwave, followed by a fair bit of radioactive fallout.
They only kill people if you use them within 30 miles or so of a populated area, which of course responsible nuke owners would not do.
They could be kept securely locked in nuke cabinets in people's homes, so there was no danger of any criminals, terrorists or psychos getting their hands on them.
I'll start lobbying Parliament first thing tomorrow. I'm sure 100 kilotons or so would be adequate for home defense & target nuking.
The prime purpose of a gun is to kill people. The prime purpose of a car is to act as a mode of transport. Guns are also used for sport. Cars too. So what? We're talking about the majority here, not the minority. Grab hold of the big picture for a second, take a good, long look.
As to your point about crink-driving, I think you're right. Drunk drivers should be disciplined or reprimanded to the maximum extent of the law. Their actions are the same as, oh, I dunno, someone who accidentally opens fire with a rifle while peering down on a crowd from the top of a bell-tower.
The alcohol V drugs issue is called hypocrisy. You're point is correct. Well done. Have a house point. Now go and watch Bill Hicks for an interesting discourse on the subject.
Unfortunately, the same does *not* "work in this case". The cars are not to blame as they were being used for a purpose other than that which they were designed and by one who was incompetent to use that device at the time of the incident (to use your specific example). As such, it's not a viable argument. You may as well argue that someone who accidentally drops a fridge into a busy crowd from a third story window would make a good case for banning fridges. The fridge was not designed to be dropped from a window. Likewise, the car was not designed to be operated by one who was not able to fully control it. This is why we have driving tests.
On the other hand, guns are designed to spit out bits of metal at alarmingly high speed. The only remaining factor regarding their operation is how accurate you are at aiming that piece of lead. I suppose that means that your argument, when logically extended, is that all those who operate potentially lethal machines should be competent to use them. As such, what say you go out and provide shooting courses over at your local Projects and see how well that cuts down the murder rate.
I propose that in order to make our society (whatever it is) a safer place for all, we now introduce compulsory fridge dropping tests.
Parallel dropping into a limited space (for example, a car park, or busy parade of shops) should be tested, as well as which side to open the fridge door on when dropping and the importance of correct load balancing so as to avoid unnecessary wear on components.
There would also have to be a weight\volume capacity limit for those who had only recently passed their tests. Otherwise you'd get the foolhardy situation of someone being able to pass their test with a small Zannusi or similar and then being able to own and use one of those ludicrous American behemoths with those "aerodynamic fins" just because of rich parents.
I'm also against the compulsory coming on of the fridge light when the door is opened, as I think it should be the choice of the individual and it just lulls people into a false sense of security.
Well, considering that folks have been saying that Kenny's death has become too boring and predictable, I think fridge-dropping would add a needed element of suspense to South Park.
To bloody right, you come home afetr a night drink, looking for your slab of corned beef to devoiur, you open the fridge door only to to confronted by a SEARCHLIGHT ,
and then there's that bloddy neon indicator, on my clock. But I've painted that out with black nail varnish.
: Interesting, though, because one of the most relied on methods of convincing people to ban guns is through the discussion of accidental deaths of children because of misuse or ignorance of guns. Again I ask why is it bad for children and/or adults to die accidentally to guns, but still socially acceptable for it to happen through automobiles. A single fridge dropped on someone is hardly comparable. Automobiles account for many, mnay deaths in the United States on a yearly basis, while a single dropped fridge does nothing. The comparable level for cars and firearms is that on both counts people need to use those items responsibly. Lack of responsibility when using either of those items leads to death. I don't *care* if the car was not built for killing people, the end result is still the same.
: I agree that those who operate lethal machines should be competent to use them. To that ends I *regularly* team firearms safety and instruction. So thanks for the invite for something I already do. What education does is slowly dwindles down the accidental deaths. The more people that actually *know* how to deal with a gun, the less likely they are to accidentally shoot themselves if they find one. Unfortunately education about firearms safety does nothing to address those things that cause some parts of a civilization to prey on other parts of that civilization and hurt and wound them with whatever tool they have at their disposal. Resolve those issues, or at least work to resolve them and *then* the murder rate will go down. Less than a 3rd of violent crimes in the US are committed using firearms. Banning guns, knives or whatever still does not address the causes of those ciolent crimes.
<ballistic fridge argument snipped because of silliness>
If you ask me, this is merely a feeble attempt to use emotional blackmail through the exploitation of kiddywinkles. As such, I heartily approve.
Who said it was socially acceptable? I don't believe it is. It is, however, tolerated if the car is being used for a practical purpose instead of for fun, curiosity or homicide.
What about a bunch of fridges, then?
Surely that depends upon how high you drop the fridge? "I say we dust off and drop it from orbit."
Agreed. Now define what the 'responsible' usage of a gun entails.
What is the average sociological make-up of your students?
Agreed, but experience tells us that the American public are, in general, so arrogant that they will refuse to believe that they require such training. In these circumstances, education is not the answer.
You can use the car example as proof of this. Having driven on American roads many times I can safely state that half of the drivers should be banned from getting into the driver's seat. Mind you, having ridden a motorbike on British roads for the last five years, the same can be said about motorists here, too.
And don't talk to me about Vulva Estates driven by six-foot-three Norwegians named Bjorn.
That means that almost a third are. You can wipe out that third by banning firearms on a National level.
I question your premise: I agree with the US focus on the state of mind: Vehicular homicide (recklessness) is NOT the same as murder (specific intent) Does a toddler playing with matches who burns down an apartment building deserve a murder conviction?
Dude, making a south park parody out of this massacre is not cool! I do agree on your views of censorship though. You are right about all this nonsense in banning t.v. shows, music, and so on. I mean the parents of 2 of the deceased girls are trying to pin this on video games, and a movie, called The Basketball diaries. I bet if their daughters were still alive today, they would PRAISE anything that had Leo in it. Find what I'm saying is odd? Then I dare anyone to step forward and PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME how these things are are so influential! If this were true than why only two kids have resulted in such a crime, how come everyone that enjoys certain type of music, and plays vid-games are not effected? P.S. For everyone that is/has been affected by the shootings , you have my deepest sympathies.
Guys, no disrepect, but could you stop crossposting to alt.tv.southpark? I mourn for those kids with the rest of ya, but a southpark ng shouldn't have these posts in it... LordGroghe
Are you for real? 'Cuz if you are, it's too bad you weren't in that school! Besides, from what I understand of xianity, it's not okay to hate anyone. Thet just do it. Am I wrong? Now, don't think that I condone xianity or anything, but that's what I hear about the religion. Maddeline Hattuer
gun laws have EVERYTHING to do with this. we don't need no stinking gun laws in america. the reason so many students died is because they had no means of defense. in an armed society crime would NOT be a problem.
17 - Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peacable in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 - Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 - Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 - Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Now, I'm not a preacher, but from the preach whom I learn from, this is a quick translation.
Do not pay back someone with evil because they did something bad to you.
Remain in good terms with those around you. As much as you possibly can,
keep at peace with you fellow man. Do not avenge for things done to
you. Keep wrath for only those times which are right. Vengeance is the
lords, not yours. So, if your enemy if hungry, give him food. If your
enemy is thirsty, give him water. Doing so will show him that your not
his enemy. Do not be overcome with evil, but repay evil with goodness.
Now these are some of the rules that all Bible believing Christains SHOULD
FOLLOW. I don't see "find nearest automatic weapon and go hunting when
someone does you wrong" anywhere in the text. Nor do I see "if thine
enemy hate you, repay him with as much hate as possible" anywhere in
there. I hate only one thing, sin. I hate sin a lot. It's bad.
Everyone should sin as little as they possibly can. I don't hate sinners.
In fact my best friends are sinners. 8-D That was a joke because we are
all sinners. But I have non-Christian friends too. Now I don't do much
with them because they want to do stuff I think is wrong. I hate the
sin... I don't think they should do it. But I don't hate the sinners.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. I know gay people. I don't hate them,
what their doing may be wrong, doesn't mean I hate them.
Of course he does. The gun manufacturers will be ejaculating black powder over the idea! Maybe we could get the cereal companies involved. Send in forty-five boxtops from Captain Crunch and get 15% off of a brand new Glock---Now with interchangeable Gang Color Grips!!!!
ROTFLFNARBOTTOTBTWILAC!!! lol... Little kid opening a box of ceeal, pours it into the bowl... special gun prize falls out, hits bowl, goes off, kills kid point blank.
It's probably wrong to laugh at that... I'll stop now...
Hmmmmm.... well lets see.... would those two freaks have killed 25 in an inner city school? HA! Would they have even made it inside the door? I don't think so. I actuly don't think that 14 year olds should be carrying the guns, but the teachers should have been. If the teachers had been armed, they could have done more than point to the exits.
Andrew Lee Ekleberry wrote in message news:[email]...
they
Would you fire on someone who walked through the door.......? Would you have had time to raise your gun and fire at them after they had started shooting.? Would you have then become a target?, could you have killed both of them before they got you.? Would you have attempted to fire on them known they had wepons firing and only need to turn around to blow you away?.
Maybe the teachers would have been the first to get killed, who knows maybe if the teachers had fired they would have hit innocent bystanders.
Far better that everyone be unarmed than everybody armed.
<<Far better that everyone be unarmed than everybody armed.>>
Sorry, but that's an impossible scenerio <sp>. Just because we pass a law aganst guns, what makes you think that the criminals will suddenly turn good and turn in their guns?
--Daniel Gordon "Will there be beer?" "Beer is not permitted." "Homer no function beer well without." "Would you rather have beer or complete and utter contentment?" "What kind of beer?" -The Simpsons, "The Joy Of Sect"
Look..... Criminals will *always* have guns. And if someon mugs you holding a gun you are *not* gonna try and *draw* are you?
If the general populace is left gunless all that will happen is that some one with some mental abbaration will not be able to Go Postal..
I'd rather see *non-criminals* unarmed than see another Littleton, Dunblane..etc.... "When guns are outlawed, only ouitlaws will have guns... GOOD It'll make it easier to put 'em in jail !!"
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
<<Criminals will *always* have guns. And if someon mugs you holding a gun you are *not* gonna try and *draw* are you?>>
Yep. I'm a firm believer in victims fighting back. "Will there be beer?" "Beer is not permitted." "Homer no function beer well without." "Would you rather have beer or complete and utter contentment?" "What kind of beer?" -The Simpsons, "The Joy Of Sect"
There is a definate falicy to this statement. This is completely wrong. It is a simple case of the parents of thoes two boys not doing their jobs as parents and teaching the boys the difference between right and wrong. Educators have the very same responsibility and if you allowed teachers to have weapons in their classrooms this would create a do as I say not as I do scenario. This is wrong.
I am not an advocate of the christian right wing but unfortunately parents have left the television to babysit the children while they participate in thier busy lives. I had the benifit of haveing a stay at home mum. she is a very smart woman and left her career as Head dietition in a hospital to bring both myself and my brother up. I may not be exactly what my parents dreamed me to be but I am happy as I am even though I am not exactly the most popular person in a certain place and I was far from being popular in high school but I wouldn't even consider killing people cause they were popular and decided that I was worth picking on because i wasn't. This also happened to me! But I still didn't go round the school killing!
This is all I have to say about the awful masacre.
I think gun laws and allowing kids to carry gunsd to school both sidestep the real issue. Our society is incredibly violent. How can we tell kids NOT to mshoot one another when adults solve so many problems by shooting people?Easier to address than violence as acultural preset, is the fact that parents are not communicating with kids. YOu can't start trying to talk to them when they are already building bombs-you shoulod be communicatiing regularly with any offspring you produce from the tieom they can do so. Lots of teenagers CONSIDER shooting up or blowing up their school. Very few actually do. You can't legislate manners, consideration or common sense. If we make society someplace that is WORTH growing up to live in maybe less kids would consider murder-suicide a viable option. Eldritch
It is up to each and every parent to prevent their kids from watching TV and movies which are violent. My parents did this with me, and I will do it with my kids.
I can't think of a situtation in which your statment is true.
I fail to see your point. How is it easier to deal with non-communicating parent? There isn't a way to force parents to talk with their kids. BTW, this is one of many reason I am against public schools. Parent tend to just want the schools to take care of their kids. They use schools to pass off parental dutys.
No kidding.
So, how do we make society someplace that is worth growing up to live in? And why do you think it's even possible for you to do this? My father always told me that life isn't what happens to you but what you make of what happens to you. If you choose to take life badly, there isn't anything that anyone else can do. At the same time, if you choose to take thing in a good way, no one else would need to anything.
i think he means if you can kill someone before they can kill you there'll be less crime, though my expertise in moron is limited to the numpty dialect and he may be speaking dumbass stoopid.
i see you have it well thought out...crime will never go away...as man will never stop wanting what isn't his...nor will he ever stop in the killing of one another....nor hating...
anyhow...for this reason...one has guns. should a man not protect his family...himself from those bent of doing him harm? only a fool would lay down his means of protecting him and his family. thats life...deal with it.
Before jumping in. I was addressing a specific point. A guy said Guns=No Crime... I showed how tht is utter garbage. End of story..
However..
This has been argued back and forth so many times. Having a gun will NOT stop people coming to your house. Why do I know this? Because it STILL happens! Criminals do not *know* who does or doesdn't have guns, yet crime continues to happen, and Americans can freely buy guns. So the *We need guns to protect ourselves* stick doesn't work. If a burglar is in your house, with a gun, and you are woken up by him, you have to silently *find* your gun, (while half asleep) and then silently get to where the burglar is and *then* if he hasn't shot *you* by then (Oops... maybe HE has a gun too!) you can shoot him.
You forgot that (since we're assuming that everyone is a responsible gun owner, to prevent accidental deaths) You have to find the key to teh gun lock (stored seperately) You have to find the ammo (stored seperately) You have to unlock the gun You have to load the gun.
My parents never had this when I lived with them. Good parents don't need to store these seperately, nor keep them under lock and key. The gun is not loaded while stored, thats "gun safety 101". But loading only takes a few seconds.
On top of this, you don't go find the person once you have the loaded weapon, you yell that you have a weapon. Nine times out of ten, the intruder will not want to stick around with people who don't have to follow the same rules as police when fireing a weapon. Most criminals are more scared of citizens with weapons than police, because police can't just shoot them and get away with it. If you come in my house, I will shoot you, no questions asked. A police officer must follow a lot of guide lines before fireing. I'm not going to go down the stairs, I'm going to wait at the top for you to climb the stairs, and shoot you when you try to come around the corner. I'm not going to get shot unless you know that I'm both armed and waitting for you, and remember I know my house better than you. So I know where to hide, and where to ambush an intruder. You don't. If your lucky enough to know that I'm armed, you won't know where I'm going to lay wait for you.
Doesn't mean there are no accidents. An Accident isn't an event w/o a cause, it's either an event with an unintentional cause, or an unexpected effect.
Gross stupidity on the part of the Dad. Should leave a gun loaded. Should have the draw locked.
This is a prime example of a non-accident, it's a disaster waiting to happen only a matter of time until it did.
It's like sitting on the edge of a cliff with your feet dangling obver the edge and then falling off, amybe unintentional, but I've never fallemn off a cliff. Why because I'm not stupid enough to site on the edge of one.
Not from my POV. And probably not an insurance companies either. It was a disaster waiting to happen, it has happened befor and will happen again. Russin roulette is not an accident. In the UK parents are told not to leave bleach and garden/kitchen chemicals were children can get at them. If a child drinks bleach out of a bottle marked coke or something that is not an accident, I'd have them up for manslaughter.
If you want to have a discussion, please respond. If you just want to score point by selectively quoting, and removing elements of the discussion, please don't bother me.
Leaving an loaded gun in an unlocked draw with a young child is a time 'bomb' waiting to go off. It is totally predictable that a childs inquisitiveness will override it's young logic.
Yes, totally predictable. But NOT intended. If the father said 'hmm, I;ll leave my loaded gun here so my son can shoot himself' This in NOT an accident. But if he leaves the gun there, NOT intending to kill his son, and NOT wanting to kill his son, then the outcome was unintended. And that makes it accidental, even if a reasonable person could have predicted it might happen.
<snip> Soory for the snip, but mt newsreader won't post unless I've more inserted text than original, dunno why :-(
it's
Well I call this mis-adventure as do the courts I believe. Also... When someone plays Russian roulette they put the gun against their head usually for a bet with a number of bullets less than the gun can hold. They pull the trigger, they do not intend to kill themselves. If they do I don't call that an accident either.
Simply because it is a common belief that if you aren't writing more than what's quoted, you're not adding much to the argument, but I think you can alter this setting in the newsgroup reader.
I must've changed the setting because it used to happen with me and now it doesn't.
The point I was actrually trying to make (prob. a bity too ironically) was theat the US is so damn litigeous that there appears to be no such THING as an accident anymore.
My example above stands.
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Well I can't agree there, an accident is something where blame/fault can't be attached. If someone shoots thamselves in the head with a gun containing only one bullet is it an accident?.
Of course blame can be attached. Bob walks down the street. Bob trips (his shoelace had become undone w/o in realizing). He falls. Clearly it was Bob's fault for not realizing, but also it was an accident.
Somewhere out there, about one year ago. I think this was Florida. Not
sure. Three men in their mid 20's broke into an elderly mans home. They
found him watching TV. They decided to shove the elderly man into his
closet and then proceed to empty the house. Well this elderly man happen
to own a .357 magnum (not sure, but it was some sort of pistol). The
elderly man came out of the closet and shot the one who was in the room,
and then the other who was coming to see what had happend. The last man
ran for the hills. This happend DISPITE THE INTRUDERS BEING ARMED!! Of
the two who were shot, neither died, one was in the hospital for more than
a month.
Lower Ohio area. About 6 months ago. A woman and two children were at home when someone attempted to pick the lock on the back door. The mother wasted no time in finding the shot gun and pointed it at the window and moved the curtain aside. The would be intruder surrenderd after realizing that there were two barrels of buck shot otherwise.
Somewhere out there, about three years ago. An intruder enter the house of a preacher and his wife plus two kids. The intruder pulled a weapon and killed the man, then went after his wife. While the intruder prepared to rape the women, the two children retrived a pistol from the bedroom and proceeded to kill the intruder with one shot to the chest.
"So the *We need guns to protect ourselves* stick doesn't work." BULL SHIT!!
Andrew Lee Ekleberry wrote in message news:[email]...
<snip 3 examples of guns in the house working>
What about the _hundreds_ of accidental deaths from legal firearms every year, episodes like Colorado etc etc etc.
A few years ago a woman in my village shot dead an intruder in her house. It turned out to be her husband who had come back from a conference early to surprise her.
In the news yesterday in Los Angeles was a kid who was playing around with his father's gun. I wasn't listening too carefully but he either shot himself dead or one of his friends. We read reports about this sort of thing every day.
Phildo wrote in message news:SeP%2.1939$[email]...
every year,
house. It
early to
around with his
himself dead
every day
The poster makes a good point!
We read every day, how self-serving people coopt governments, disarm the citizens and have their way with the people and the resources of the countries, and of course our history books are full of situations where self-serving government employees disarmed a populace, and killed and brutalized them by the millions.
Rather than emotionally react to isolated, random tragedies that will always randomly, even in the best of societies, we should use our brains and heed the lessons of history, and make sure that the masses have the means to protect themselves from criminals, wannabe tyrants, oppressive and abusive government employees, and from enemies foreign and domestic.
Tom Potter wrote in message news:7hpaca$sk6$[email]...
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...... PARANOID MAN !!!!!!
See him bring down oppressive governments in a single bound, arming the entire population because he thinks those in power are conspiring against him. Gasp as he totally misinterprets the US constitution and attempts to justify it by saying they're all out to get him. Be amazed at the total lack of logic in his argument and horrified as he condemns innocent children to death by leaving his guns out for them to play with saying "it's gonna happen anyway so let it happen then at least we'll have guns when the government comes after us.
Coming to a battlefield lunatic asylum near you soon..........
Did it stop the crimes from being attempted in the first place? No. And THAT is my point. There will *always* be criminals, and they will always attempt to rob, rape, etc... the argument goes that if everyone is armed there will be no crime, well guess what...*Anyone* in the US *could* be armed, you don't know... and you *still* have crime
(Shock, horror, gasp!!)
Oh, and as you want to quote example...
British tourist is lost in LA, he has been out with friends and has gotten seperated from them, he makes his way back to what he thinks is the area they live and approaches a neighbouring door to check his location.
The house owner *shoots him THROUGH the door*. He dies.
Covenant wrote in message news:7hktil$cn7$[email]...
...
The gun lobby and the Prattites have been on the slippery slope for a long time now. Out of the one side of their mouth they scream that the Supreme Court has always stood up for the private right to own firearms, out of the other they scream there's too much regulation. They hypocritically insist that America just needs to be armed and all of our problems will be solved w;hile denying that America IS armed.
REALLY?? Ok, so why didn't any of the students pull out their weapons and fire at the two shooters? Why didn't any teacher pull out their weapon and fire? Why did they all just run around like birds until they were shot? Why did the two shooters have to kill themselfs instead of being mowed down by anyone?
Why do these things ONLY happen in suberb schools were they don't have a gun "problem"? Why do these things NEVER happen in inner city schools? WHY?!?!? Easy... if those two shooters had tryed that stunt in an inner city school, they wouldn't have made it past the parking lot before a dozen armed student would have cut them down.
Yeah, just think of how much a bunch of loony, immature, undisciplined, hormone drenched high school kids could have accomplished if they were all armed...
Andrew Lee Ekleberry wrote in message news:[email]...
...
all
their
Possible.new.con.
Two students leapt out of a car to give their kid sister a surprise birthday present after school. The little girl said later, they just wanted to give me this box of candy in a mock shootup they had chocolate guns wrapped in silver foil, then out of nowhere some others stated shooting at them for no reason. Police later said that the 12 students where know as trouble makers and had been out to prove they were men in being faster one the draw than anyone else in town they saw themselves as vigilanty bounty hunters and thought they were above the law. If they hadn't had access to guns it would never have happened.
I'm not directing this at you personally, you know.
handguns.
is
I can provide you with a variety of statistics on the subject and in the process bore everyone on the newsgroup to death. If you or anyone else wants proof, you can email me and I will happily provide you with them.
That was my point. They are readily available _to criminals_.
<sarcasm> Please, be more condescending. I can't get enough of it. </sarcasm>
I understand the concept, thanks. How would you put it into effect? You'd have to destroy every gun in existence, put a worldwide ban on any kind of gun, ban the manufacture of guns etc etc. And I can guarantee that some would still get through.
And
of
People like me? What's with the personal attack, huh? You don't know me, or anything about me. I have no wish for anyone to die. I only wish for people to think about what they are saying. I am here to debate, not to argue. I have nothing against you, and I come across people who share your point of view all the time. I don't want this to descend into childish name-calling and petty argument. I don't agree with everything you're saying. So what? I don't expect anyone to agree with everything I'm saying. This is why we have discussion forums. If we all agreed with each other, there'd be nothing to read. I'm not trying to persuade you that guns are good and that we should all be out killing people. I'm just putting across my point of view. Which was originally just to say that of course I don't want to see people shot but I don't think a total ban is the answer. That's all. I don't think that merits the condescension and contempt with which you address me.
the
I too am a pacifist. You might find this difficult to understand.
I refer to scapegoating purely because the very first post in this thread was largely concerned with paranoia and scapegoating. I merely suggest that goths are not the only victims of said scapegoating, okay? You don't have to agree, but you don't have to attack me so viciously either. It's childish. Please stop.
but it
where
the same
What's all this "gun culture"? A term invented by the media. Not a healthy one, either. If you label a concept you give it a degree of credibility. See "road rage".
people
a law
owner
A gun is not a toy, and any gun owner would agree with me on that one. And we don't treat them like toys, either.
killed
nice,
Hamilton was not a nice, legal, honest gun owner. 1 out of 3 there. He was legal. But would not have been if the law had been applied correctly by the police. I've said it before, this thread is not about Dunblane, and if you need to know more about Hamilton, and you obviously do, please read the Cullen report.
And I don't want to see it happen again either. You make unfounded assumptions about me.
It was not directed at you. It was a general comment. Why do you take all of this so personally?
Why not just post a couple of the most devasting/imteresting.. Some like
Number oif guns in the UK/US Number of gun related killing in the UK/US>
Maybe a date and a souce might be useful.
Here I'll start....
And what do we do with criminals?
How about anyone that was found with a gun in public had them held to their head and the trigger pulled.
Would you carry a gun in public if the police were likelyto come up to you ? It's not an overnight solution but.... a start in the right direction.
FYI :- I don't think you were being attacked personally that's not how I read the post.
I wish I could be that generous ;-)
But this was done unfaily as they were not Goths, they wore trwenchcoats and like MM that was how they were identified. But they were still not Goths.
They did pocess GUNS, and owned them. They owed them to shoot with them. They only diffence between you and them (on the surface) is that they used live targets and not in self defence..
(You refers to any individual in these cases) BTW if your paranoid mybe your a Goth ;-) I though it was by yourselves... The idea that if anyone owns a gun they will only use it in self defense, you are trained to fire a gun before you can legally drink, drive or vote. Having a gun around does indeed seem part of you way of life. i.e culture Isn't that what helps define a culture... if we apply this to Goths it would most likely be owneing a range of make-up going out at nights, listening to 'some' bands etc...
Agreed, so why not make it cool/kwool/trendy to not own a gun.
Well lets see you play at shooting targets (I do too but on my computer) I call that playing games on my computer.
Okay.. You say you are not directing this at me personally, but your post it'self said.....
To *me* that's directed at me personally.
I have tried time and again to state that this is all, perhaps, a lovely little dream of mine. But look at this logically.
Criminals *already* have guns. (But what ratio in the UK actually *do* have them?) *We* in the UK do not. Why then are we not overrun with gun crime in the UK? Because we do not have guns lying around in houses, on sale on most streets. Take the guns out of society and then those who hold guns are given *massive* penalties for ownership. People keep saying *criminals* will own guns anyway. Fine! Then there will always be gun crime, but there will be *less* if there are less guns. Why? Because *Johnny next door* can't sudenly think in a drink/drugs fuddled mind... "Hey, let's get dad's gun and rob the store."
Or pissed of teenagers may think twice about blowing away their peers.
Guns are *not* easy to come by in the UK. I know one or two dodgy characters myself, but even they do not know how to procure one. (How do I know this? I asked them!)
If guns are banned then they become a luxury item, very expensive to procure, *far* beyond the means of the *casual* thief. And that alone will help to drop the numbers of gun crime.
April, I'll give you the fact I was condecending. It appeared to me that you were doing exactly the same thing with your *naive* comment, (If I am struck at I strike back. Pacifist, yes, but not an easy target verbally!) If your *Naive* comment was not intended degradingly (although I can't see how it would not be intended that way) then I'm quite prepared to withdraw my own peculiar brand of sarcasm. But not until I know it wasn't meant to be taken that way.
Like I said... It's a dream... BUT .....
Y'see.. I actually believe that at *some* point in mankinds future (If we get that far) that *men* may suddenly realise (or slowly) What the hell have we been doing!! What is worth killing another person for? Aging Hippy?.. Maybe, but I'm happy with it. Why? Because it makes me feel *morally* superior to certain factions who, "Will give up their guns when prised etc......."
it will >>never happen. And people will continue to die needlessly, senselessly and by the >>hands of cowards.)
Why did you take the phrase *(people like you* to be an attack?
All I meant by it was that people who don't believe guns should be banned (in my example above* are a part of the problem. (In my nice little fantasy world ; ' ) )
I know enough to say that we have crossed metaphorical swords before and I had found you to be a polite, intelligent person. Needless to say, the *Naive* comment threw me!!
; ' ) Some would say it's the same thing.
Nor I, you...
ONE
The nice, legal gun owner was relating to the fact that he obtained his guns nice and legally. Not that he himself was *nice*. I have seen the report, I know there were issues that would cast doubt over whether he should have had guns or not. But the facts are that he *did* get them, and he got them *nice and legally*.
I hope we've cleared that up! ; ' )
Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
I was offline for ages and when I got back online and saw the thread I had to respond cos it concerns something which affects me directly.
it'self
I am genuinely sorry if you were offended by that. I meant naive in that although ideals are nice to have it's almost always impossible to implement them. I should know, I'm a lapsed Marxist :)
<snip>
that you
struck
can't see
withdraw
meant to be
Ouch! Bitchy. However, I understand what you mean about striking back and as you have seen I am often prone to the same.
and I
That really got to you, huh? I am *so* sorry. I really didn't mean to offend you, and I mean that.
Shall we just agree to differ? I'm getting absolutely no work done at all since I started posting to this thread :)
And there, my friend, as soon as I decided that I needed a gun I'd produce a small, pocket sized submachinegun that is silenced and probably would use laser pointer components for a laser sight as well. And because it would use cheap materials and wartime construction, I could produce several for the amount of materials and labor that I'd have to use to reproduce my old service revolver. And so, if a ban happens, there not only will be a black market, but the weapons available illegally will actually exceed the performance of those formerly legal ones that they replaced. (It happened that way in the Philippines after Ferdinand Marcos banned private ownership of firearms by decree. The most creative gunsmiths I've seen anywhere come from places like Mindanao and Cebu and Panay.)
And it's basically true. My Son got suspended from school a week ago for two days. His crime? He forgot to leave his Swiss Army Knife at home!
When he went back, some of the kids asked him if he was going to shoot any of them. My son treated it as a joke, but I still find it disturbing.
Of course all of this scapegoating allows the people who are most responsible for the conditions which led to the shootings to avoid their responsibility for them.
Strawmen both. Gun Culture and Road Rage are attempts to isolate and demonize by application of pejoratives. It's a common propaganda technique. What amazes me is that so many people insist on regurgitating slogans coined by the tasteless for the pseudoedification of the brainless.
Mine tend to be locked up in a steel safe when I'm not using them at work or the range. And while my children all know how to shoot, they don't touch them, (can't, I have the only keys anyway) except when I take them shooting.
So why not go for it.....NOW. I'm sure they'd be a market for such things.
Education's not such a bad thing here, do you think he is more or less likely to 'forget' to take his knife with him next time. Any idea why he might need the knife at school?
As always.... the law abiding suffer the most, as they're the ones that forgive the F*** ups of others.
But these things happened long before long words were 'invented'
Some do.
That's the best way, you seem to be able to resit you constitutional right to carry a gun around all day.