Right to bear arms saves lives at MGH!

[pauli007001]

Doctor stabbed, attacker killed at Massachusetts General Hospital - The Boston Globe


I Guess this says it all, more armed law abiding citizens makes for a safer world.This criminal would have definatly prefered an unarmed victim.I guess he was in favor of Gun controll!!!!

[Kiwi 1691]

Doctor stabbed, attacker killed at Massachusetts General Hospital - The Boston Globe


I Guess this says it all, more armed law abiding citizens makes for a safer world.This criminal would have definatly prefered an unarmed victim.I guess he was in favor of Gun controll!!!!

Less gun regulation, makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on them.

Your Gun Laws are an embarrassment to the western world, don't try to taint other nations.

[pauli007001]

Less gun regulation, makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on them.

Your Gun Laws are an embarrassment to the western world, don't try to taint other nations.

You think?I am legally allowed to defend my home and family from violent criminals.That is why we have the right to bear arms.This doctor and possibly many others would have died if it wasnt for our right to bear arms, fewer deaths, you call that an embarrasment?

It is GUN CONTROLL laws that put weapons in the hands of criminals.

Stronger gun controll gives the violent criminal an edge, it has been proven that criminals prefer an unarmed victim.Gun regulation is irrelivant to crime,it makes no difference to accesability.I could buy a pistol faster on the street in Huddersfield or Halifax than i could from a legal supplier here in the USA, there is strict regulation without punishing the law abiding citizens( as the UK laws appear to, making the victims of crime the criminals and the criminals the victims).

[JacquesMagique]

Considering the extent to which guns are owned in the US, I can't really see introducing gun control as a particularly good diea. At the same time, I'm not sure making laws more lax here would be a good idea either.

[pauli007001]

I would wager that your impression of the number of gun owners in the USA is greatly exaggerated, its not as many as you think.Even fewer if you consider those who own hand guns(pistols).Many Hunters own rifles or shot guns but i would consider them as much a tool as a weapon, they enable many to feed their families.

Depending on each state some regulation is in place, by both the state and the federal government.I know in Massachusetts you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to purchase a weapon, the process for buying a shotgun here is far more complex than in the UK.It is still possible to aquire a legal handgun here in MA even a license to carry.The first law of Tony B Liar eliminating the right to own handguns for all UK citizens caused a situation where more criminals are armed and no victim is able to defend themselves against an armed criminal.I am not urging the UK to change its laws( even though so many UK residents scream how the USA should change their laws to suit them) just looking at a situation in the USA that prooves my point about how the right to bear arms can have a positive effect.Apply the same rule to schools, Columbine would not have happened(or could have been controlled sooner)If teaching staff were armed.The VT situation would never have happened if faculty/ students were allowed to arm themselves against such an attack.

[Syph]

Depending on each state some regulation is in place, by both the state and the federal government.I know in Massachusetts you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to purchase a weapon, the process for buying a shotgun here is far more complex than in the UK.It is still possible to aquire a legal handgun here in MA even a license to carry.The first law of Tony B Liar eliminating the right to own handguns for all UK citizens caused a situation where more criminals are armed and no victim is able to defend themselves against an armed criminal.I am not urging the UK to change its laws( even though so many UK residents scream how the USA should change their laws to suit them) just looking at a situation in the USA that prooves my point about how the right to bear arms can have a positive effect.Apply the same rule to schools, Columbine would not have happened(or could have been controlled sooner)If teaching staff were armed.The VT situation would never have happened if faculty/ students were allowed to arm themselves against such an attack.

The right to bear arms is a paranoid right for the right-wingers who are really think they are in charge in the USA. The commie-fearing conservatives who are scared of change and are willing to revolt to protect it.

Any civilised society who arms every citizen (although the Swiss have quite a good system but everyone is conscripted) just because they are a citizen just shows up how paranoid about crime/how widespread crime is in the USA.

Columbine would have happened more often if the guns were more readily available. What about kids caught in the crossfire. What about the perpetrators taking other kids hostages and lining them up against the wall.

I don't see the need in a civilised society where guns are in the hands of the police and army, where they belong...

[Tantal]

The right to bear arms is a paranoid right for the right-wingers who are really think they are in charge in the USA. The commie-fearing conservatives who are scared of change and are willing to revolt to protect it.

Which is exactly the way our Founding Fathers intended the Amendment.

Any civilised society who arms every citizen (although the Swiss have quite a good system but everyone is conscripted) just because they are a citizen just shows up how paranoid about crime/how widespread crime is in the USA.

They're not just for the criminals, but for the politicians too, lest they forget who's in charge.

Columbine would have happened more often if the guns were more readily available.

Colombine would've been over in a matter of seconds if the teachers could've armed themselves. Instead, the perpetrators chose a 'Gun Free Zone' to make their attack.

What about the perpetrators taking other kids hostages and lining them up against the wall.

What about governments taking political dissidents and lining them up against the wall? For some reason, the 'purges' always seem to happen in your leftist socialist utopias.

I don't see the need in a civilised society where guns are in the hands of the police and army, where they belong...

I don't see the need, in a truly free society, to have the government in absolute control of the populace.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...tivational.jpg

[pauli007001]

The right to bear arms is a paranoid right for the right-wingers who are really think they are in charge in the USA. The commie-fearing conservatives who are scared of change and are willing to revolt to protect it.

Any civilised society who arms every citizen (although the Swiss have quite a good system but everyone is conscripted) just because they are a citizen just shows up how paranoid about crime/how widespread crime is in the USA.

Columbine would have happened more often if the guns were more readily available. What about kids caught in the crossfire. What about the perpetrators taking other kids hostages and lining them up against the wall.

I don't see the need in a civilised society where guns are in the hands of the police and army, where they belong...

Yup and the people must be told what is good for them, they aint as smart as us you see.The arrogance of the average totalitarian astounds.

FYI the USA does not arm anyone but its Military and Law enforcement.It allows its citizens the personal freedom to make a choice to purchase a weapon, for defense, for hunting or to keep political power where it belongs, with the people.
Columbine would not have happened or would have been ended with fewer deaths if all the staff at the school were armed.The first shot would have alerted staffmembers, who could have opened fire on the killers, neutralising them.Others may have been hit in crossfire, but if no armed persons were there they would have been killed anyway.Just as in the MGH situation, where an armed civvillian neutralised a crazed murderer intent on killing more innocents, guns in the hands of the law abiding citizen prevent criminals carrying out their crimes.
You cannot rely on the police, look at average response times in the UK and the US, 2 mins in the city where i live(very fast) 20 mins in my home town in the UK.

[Syph]

Which is exactly the way our Founding Fathers intended the Amendment.

I know, perhaps I was suggesting that the Founding Fathers were wrong *gasp*...

They're not just for the criminals, but for the politicians too, lest they forget who's in charge.

What, the minority of conservative Republicans at the moment I suppose?

Colombine would've been over in a matter of seconds if the teachers could've armed themselves. Instead, the perpetrators chose a 'Gun Free Zone' to make their attack.

Columbine was planned meticulously. The guys responsible could have easily changed their plans to a hostage style takeover rather than a bombing/shootout. Overall, hostage situations are

What about governments taking political dissidents and lining them up against the wall?

Any response would be hypocritical from my country's perspective, and the question itself is hypocritical from your's.

For some reason, the 'purges' always seem to happen in your leftist socialist utopias.

I'm not a socialist. I don't know what I am other than a moderate liberal.

Marxism is a broken system and has always been. If a great leader like Stalin (you can't deny he was a bad leader despite having no moral core) couldn't run the USSR without purging, then the problem is with the ideology.

I don't see the need, in a truly free society, to have the government in absolute control of the populace.

Would you argue that your society would be free if the government just disappeared overnight?

Your society is far from "free". It is only free for the majority group of Whites and, later, Asians who are born into a society designed for them and their Black slaves.

After watching a program called "Race and Intelligence: Science Last Taboo" I realised how much western culture had drawn up barriers of difference between the Black and White culture that means only those blacks with the drive to succeed will succeed.

Those majority of Blacks who have lost the drive are trapped by the crime in the cities and a "hip-hop" culture that glorifies gangland violence and criminal and immoral (to some) actions.

[Syph]

FYI the USA does not arm anyone but its Military and Law enforcement.It allows its citizens the personal freedom to make a choice to purchase a weapon, for defense, for hunting or to keep political power where it belongs, with the people.

The power is not with the people. Your colleges elected Barrack Obama as he best represented the majority of States views.

You cannot rely on the police, look at average response times in the UK and the US, 2 mins in the city where i live(very fast) 20 mins in my home town in the UK.

You have a larger police force and a larger population (meaning a larger number of criminals due to crime rate).

In the end, I would rather be protected with a gun, but that could prevent the protection of others, should a thief break into my house and somehow get into a secure guns cabinet with a crowbar etc.

[DougieG]

YET AGAIN, if you put gun laws into the USA, it would be disastrous. The criminals would go on a spree with their new freedom, as only lawful people would hand guns in.

But in the UK we are very lucky because people don't have guns. You have to be very stupid or very unlucky to get shot at in the UK, you really have to be in a dodgy place at a very bad time. Guns just aren't really around. Legalising them would bring our gun crime rates up to the levels of the USA, which would be a terrible thing.

Changing the gun laws in either country would lead to far more deaths and crimes. They're both fine as they are. The cultures are also very different - we in the UK haven't got a political system born in the fires of revolution, and our political system and culture is so different that to try and apply the revolutionary anti-government attitudes of the USA to the UK is just unhelpful. Trying to make either country like the other on gun laws would be a very bad move.

[Balthazar]

LOL these Yankees are funny.

• flood the place with guns
• sustain a firearms murder rate comparable to a South American banana republic (25x the British rate)
• argue that guns make people safer
• campaign for more people to be armed
• strut about pontificating about 'defending against tyrannical government'

I'd argue this is a form of child abuse:

http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=2371

It's introducing a minor to a murderous culture connected intimately to extreme right wing politics. We've seen on this forum how the right wing gun fetishists support terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh. That child should be taken into care or, as a minimum, placed on the Child Protection Register. I'd certainly deny gun nuts entry to EU nations. Let them fill in a form at Heathrow:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a right wing anarchist who supports mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh?"

If 'Yes' back on the plane they go.

[pauli007001]

Ahem, look to original post.

Nutter hacking 2 DRs to bits with huge Knife, armed law abiding citizen sees the attack shouts to the attacker, attacker turns Knife on armed law abiding citizen, attacker gets neutralised, how is that a BAD thing?

You would prefer to see the DR dead and the attacker get away scott free?I guess you dont like black people!!!!

[Midas]

I think at the bottom of this endless discussion lies the fact that the USA is a very different country to the UK, it's a country that's already full of arms and armed criminals. To remove the right of ordinary citizens to carry their own weapons to defend themselves would probably be a mistake, although I believe that there should be tight controls to prevent the further spread of weapons. However in the UK there are comparatively few guns in the hands of criminals, so the need to arm citizens, or even to allow citizens to be armed under very limited circumstances, is just not necessary, and would in all probability start the downhill slide towards a US type society in respect of gun crime.

[Syph]

I think at the bottom of this endless discussion lies the fact that the USA is a very different country to the UK, it's a country that's already full of arms and armed criminals. To remove the right of ordinary citizens to carry their own weapons to defend themselves would probably be a mistake, although I believe that there should be tight controls to prevent the further spread of weapons. However in the UK there are comparatively few guns in the hands of criminals, so the need to arm citizens, or even to allow citizens to be armed under very limited circumstances, is just not necessary, and would in all probability start the downhill slide towards a US type society in respect of gun crime.

Haha, says the man who owns a .22 rifle.

[Midas]

Haha, says the man who owns a .22 rifle.

I have 2 rifles and 3 shotguns actually, but they're only used for sport, which is a big difference. I have absolutely no problem with that.

[Balthazar]

I have 2 rifles and 3 shotguns actually, but they're only used for sport, which is a big difference. I have absolutely no problem with that.

See? This is what the Yankees can't get their heads round. The British citizenry is actually quite well armed. It's a brave burglar who attempts to rob an isolated farmhouse late at night.

Yet there's not all this pompous, self-aggrandizing, right-wing, anarchist, semi-terrorist guff about 'saving the nation from tyrannical government.' The British just keep their mouths shut, their weaponry well-polished, and pepper the arses of fleeing burglars with buckshot. Guns, on the whole, are kept out of the hands of petty criminals (serious criminals can always get a gun, anywhere in the world) and the respectable countryside middle class sleeps soundly in their beds. It's a very good arrangement.

Thank God for British gun laws. And thank God for internet forums populated by ridiculous American gun fetishists who prove, each time they open their mouths, the importance of preventing their ludicrous culture from infecting Britain.

You would prefer to see the DR dead and the attacker get away scott free?

Sorry Pauli, I can't answer your question. I'm too busy laughing at you for being a preposterous gun nut, for wishing to flood America with still more weapons. At root it's a sign of you hating, fearing, and wishing to kill, your neighbours, wrapped in pompous, self-deceiving lies about 'tyrannical government.' Not healthy.


(((Pauli)))
(((America)))

[Kiwi 1691]

There is nothing wrong with guns, but there has to be regulation.

It is crazy that in the USA you can have a loaded gun under your pillow. What happens if a child found that!!!!


How hard is it to lock up firearms securely, and ban civilians from having automatic weapons.

[Marxist Nutter]

I'm not sure about the right to bear arms, doesn't seem fair on the bear, to me

[JacquesMagique]

There is nothing wrong with guns, but there has to be regulation.

It is crazy that in the USA you can have a loaded gun under your pillow. What happens if a child found that!!!!

I believe it's actually illegal to leave unattended firearms in reach of children?

[Balthazar]

If US gun nuts weren't such pompous jackasses I wouldn't mind so much. OK, they allow any halfwit to own a gun. OK, they idolise semi-fascists like John Wayne and Charlton Heston. OK, the average NRA member is a creepy character who's soft on right-wing terrorism, and an apologist for Timothy McVeigh who blew up a child daycare centre.

But it's the strutting about pretending to be patriotic heroes which is so laughable. No they're not patriotic heroes. They're grubby little pop gun fetishists, mommy's boys, and white trash who support a firearms murder rate 25 times the UK average.

[Kiwi 1691]

I believe it's actually illegal to leave unattended firearms in reach of children?

All I know is that it is fine to leave loaded weapons lying around in USA.

EG you see people talking about having loaded pistols under their pillow or an AK 47 in a cupboard.

[pauli007001]

I have 2 rifles and 3 shotguns actually, but they're only used for sport, which is a big difference. I have absolutely no problem with that.

You must be well appointed politically to have been allowed to keep em!!

Mine were handed over in 1998, but the police hounded me to hand them over again and again until 2002, meanwhile they already had them in their storage facilities!!!!!!!

Odd little aspect of British law, whilst nothing in writing exists saying it is illegal for a divorced male to own a rifle or a shotgun, the plods show up fast enough to confiscate em when the divorce is filed.It is also a point to note that the same rule dosent apply to female divorcees!!

[Balthazar]

Mine were handed over in 1998, but the police hounded me to hand them over again and again

Sounds like good, responsible policing. Seriously Pauli, I've seen you fly off the handle on this forum. You can't control your emotions tapping on a computer so mustn't be allowed to own firearms. Maybe the police knew that. The same applies to Flash with his support for anarchist terrorism. The state should take his guns away on public safety grounds, or have them made safe so he can polish them, hang them on his wall, fetishise them, but they can't be fired. Oh, and no sane gun control regime would let Tantal own a pea shooter.

[pauli007001]

Sounds like good, responsible policing. Seriously Pauli, I've seen you fly off the handle on this forum. You can't control your emotions tapping on a computer so mustn't be allowed to own firearms. Maybe the police knew that. The same applies to Flash with his support for anarchist terrorism. The state should take his guns away on public safety grounds, or have them made safe so he can polish them, hang them on his wall, fetishise them, but they can't be fired. Oh, and no sane gun control regime would let Tantal own a pea shooter.

Me fly off the handle?

Look to thyself old hater boy.
My emotions were the same emotions that saved tens of thousands of your moslem brothers and sisters lives in Kosovo, it was my emotions that brought several nut **** serbs to justice( by spending 6 months photographing mass graves and their contents, by contents think each and every single dead body; Man Woman or child, you wanna talk about emotions and who can have them, Mr rant and hate?

You are a mere child seduced by radical rantings of self proclaimed leaders.Get a grip, grow up, and see the world as it actually is.

Either that or admit to being an anti semetic lunatic fringe Islamic fundimental who hates everything exept old Bin Liner himself.In that case shut up and go practise your fundi crap elsewhere!!

[pauli007001]

All I know is that it is fine to leave loaded weapons lying around in USA.

EG you see people talking about having loaded pistols under their pillow or an AK 47 in a cupboard.

EVIDENCE???????
Or are you using the usual totalitarian tactic of making stuff up????

Hey it worked for old Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pauli007001]

If US gun nuts weren't such pompous jackasses I wouldn't mind so much. OK, they allow any halfwit to own a gun. OK, they idolise semi-fascists like John Wayne and Charlton Heston. OK, the average NRA member is a creepy character who's soft on right-wing terrorism, and an apologist for Timothy McVeigh who blew up a child daycare centre.

But it's the strutting about pretending to be patriotic heroes which is so laughable. No they're not patriotic heroes. They're grubby little pop gun fetishists, mommy's boys, and white trash who support a firearms murder rate 25 times the UK average.

Provide evidence for all the above allegations please?I have many friends who are NRA members(National Rifle association=NRA) they use their rifles to shoot food for their families, what exactly do you have against people feeding their families?????????

I also know dozens of NRA members who do not own any weapons, they simply support the right of others to own them.

I love to see how the ignorent retards of the world view the USA.

[pauli007001]

I'm not sure about the right to bear arms, doesn't seem fair on the bear, to me

Bear tastes good, kind of a honey like flavour to it, but maybee that was the way it was cooked and i only ate it once, in a stew, it was nice though.

I see bears often on my little jaunts into the country, mostly Black bear, nice animals and when they pass you they can sometimes appear to give you a little nod as though they were greeting you, yet other times they have chewed the living crap out of people(not me of course, they always seemed to like me, ill let you all know if they ever chew me to whitin an inch of my little life).I love to see Bear wandering in the wild it is an interesting thing to see, particulary up close.

[Kiwi 1691]

EVIDENCE???????
Or are you using the usual totalitarian tactic of making stuff up????

Hey it worked for old Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Americans I have talked to (all of that are anti-regulation like you)

[pauli007001]

Sounds like good, responsible policing. Seriously Pauli, I've seen you fly off the handle on this forum. You can't control your emotions tapping on a computer so mustn't be allowed to own firearms. Maybe the police knew that. The same applies to Flash with his support for anarchist terrorism. The state should take his guns away on public safety grounds, or have them made safe so he can polish them, hang them on his wall, fetishise them, but they can't be fired. Oh, and no sane gun control regime would let Tantal own a pea shooter.

Evidence? I often see you fly off the handle, or is that just perception????

What i do is challenge retarded posts, whoever posts em, right, left, Islamobigot or christianbigot, i know better than all on this forum how crappy bigotry can screw up entire societies.You appear to desire to screw up selected societies to achieve you goals, me i just want to live my life, i cant understand why you totalitarians find that so terrifying, a person living their life, awfull i guess!!??!!???

[pauli007001]

Americans I have talked to (all of that are anti-regulation like you)

What???
Hitler and Joe Stalin were anti regulation????

[Midas]

You must be well appointed politically to have been allowed to keep em!!

Mine were handed over in 1998, but the police hounded me to hand them over again and again until 2002, meanwhile they already had them in their storage facilities!!!!!!!

Odd little aspect of British law, whilst nothing in writing exists saying it is illegal for a divorced male to own a rifle or a shotgun, the plods show up fast enough to confiscate em when the divorce is filed.It is also a point to note that the same rule dosent apply to female divorcees!!

As long as you meet the regulatory requirements, basically no criminal record, are of good character, have a place to go shooting on private land with the owner's consent and/or belong to a recognised gun club, there's little problem. It's easier to get a shotgun licence, but hardly difficult as far as a rifle is concerned, in particular if you're a club member. I really don't see where being divorced comes into it though, nor why you had a problem!

[Marxist Nutter]

Bear tastes good, kind of a honey like flavour to it, but maybee that was the way it was cooked and i only ate it once, in a stew, it was nice though.

I see bears often on my little jaunts into the country, mostly Black bear, nice animals and when they pass you they can sometimes appear to give you a little nod as though they were greeting you, yet other times they have chewed the living crap out of people(not me of course, they always seemed to like me, ill let you all know if they ever chew me to whitin an inch of my little life).I love to see Bear wandering in the wild it is an interesting thing to see, particulary up close.

Sounds cool, I envy you

[pauli007001]

Sounds cool, I envy you

Eating, watching or both??

I have only sen Black Bear and brown bear up close, not too keen on getting close to a Kodiak or a grizzly bear.

A few years ago, at the Highland games in New Hampshire we were watching the sheepdog trials.

The announcer advised all the people on the hill not to look back.
A family of bears were walking 20 feet away from some of the spectators, Mother and 4 cubs, if one person had got up and ran it would have been death on a large scale, for both humans and bears.It was something to see even though a little hard on the nerves!!!

[flash]

. The same applies to Flash with his support for anarchist terrorism.

It must really drive you bonkers to know that the government issued me a concealed weapons permit and have passed the background check for several dozen firearms including full auto assault weapons but yet I support “anarchist terrorism”.

However, just think. If I lived in your little Nazi state I couldn't get any of those weapons even if I opposed anarchist terrorism.

Life is not fair is it? Freedom is a bummer, isn't it? Especially when you don't like the idea of other people having freedom because you are scared silly of those mean ole guns.

Thank God I live in a free country instead of an authoritative Nazi like regime.

[flash]

As long as you meet the regulatory requirements, basically no criminal record, are of good character, have a place to go shooting on private land with the owner's consent and/or belong to a recognised gun club, there's little problem. It's easier to get a shotgun licence, but hardly difficult as far as a rifle is concerned, in particular if you're a club member. I really don't see where being divorced comes into it though, nor why you had a problem!

Why should there be any regulatory requirements? Why is it difficult to get a rifle? Why doesn't the government trust its citizens? Why are you allowing only the government and the crooks to own weapons while making it difficult for the average citizen? Don't you see what is wrong with scenario?

What right does the state have to restrict the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms?

I am against almost all forms of firearms regulations.

I like the “Founding Fathers model”.

If our Founding Fathers were sitting in a colonial pub drafting up the Second Amendment to the Constitution and a drunk came in wielding a loaded flintlock they would probably get up and disarm him. Maybe even confiscate his weapon until he sobered up. However, they would not exclude him from having the right to keep and bear arms.

[pauli007001]

Why should there be any regulatory requirements? Why is it difficult to get a rifle? Why doesn't the government trust its citizens? Why are you allowing only the government and the crooks to own weapons while making it difficult for the average citizen? Don't you see what is wrong with scenario?

What right does the state have to restrict the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms?

I am against almost all forms of firearms regulations.

I like the “Founding Fathers model”.

If our Founding Fathers were sitting in a colonial pub drafting up the Second Amendment to the Constitution and a drunk came in wielding a loaded flintlock they would probably get up and disarm him. Maybe even confiscate his weapon until he sobered up. However, they would not exclude him from having the right to keep and bear arms.

The post is in relation to UK gun law, Midas failed to see what i posted.The requirements for rifle and shotgun ownership in the UK are not clear(or not clearly enforced).One may be an honest upstanding member of society who has legally owned a rifle and a couple of shotguns for over 10 years without any problem.

However if that same person(with no criminal record) files for Divorce the cops can and will show up on your doorstep and seize the afore mentioned articles.
When i seperated from my ex wife i proactivly handed in my weapons to the local police station as i had moved out of the marital home and i had no safe place to hold the weapons, i was living in a rented loft type apartment with no secure place to lock up the weapons.

Despite the fact that the police had the weapons in their custody i had officers show up on my doorstep several times quoting statistics that divorced men and men going through divorce have a higher likelyhood of shooting the ex wife.They demanded that i handed over my shotguns and rifle on at least 6 occasions in 5 or 6 years, each time i explained to them that i was no longer in possesion of the weapons and that i had handed them over to Huddersfield police station.

Nothing in British law says that a Divorced male cannot have a shotgun cirtificate, in reality though getting one (or keeping one) is nigh on impossible.Harder than retaining custody of ones own kids, which of course is impossible, even if it was the ex wife who caused the divorce by their dishonest, illegal and or immoral actions, they are still better suited to raising kids because......well because they dont have a penis, i guess!!!

[Midas]

Why should there be any regulatory requirements? Why is it difficult to get a rifle? Why doesn't the government trust its citizens? Why are you allowing only the government and the crooks to own weapons while making it difficult for the average citizen? Don't you see what is wrong with scenario?

What right does the state have to restrict the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms?

Because as the huge rate of gun crime in the USA clearly shows, the free availability of guns to any Tom, Dick or Harry usually (but not exclusively, it depends on the type of society involved) leads to far more of them being used in crime, consequent on which far more get used for defence, and so on in a vicious upwards spiral. With rare exceptions British society does not need to be armed to defend itself again criminals; to so do would simply exacerbate the problem, not solve it. Having said that, I do feel that it should be easier for a law abiding member of the public, i.e., someone with no criminal record and with good character references, to get a licence for a gun, including currently banned handguns, but only for sporting purposes and with the same restrictions we have now on use and storage.

Why is it difficult to get a licence for a rifle? Several reasons which include the fact that there's very little hunting in the UK compared to the USA, our open spaces are very much more limited with many more people likely to be out and about, and frankly there's very little interest amongst the general public to own a weapon that would have very limited use unless they were a gun club member, who in general can already obtain them.

I like the “Founding Fathers model”.

If our Founding Fathers were sitting in a colonial pub drafting up the Second Amendment to the Constitution and a drunk came in wielding a loaded flintlock they would probably get up and disarm him. Maybe even confiscate his weapon until he sobered up. However, they would not exclude him from having the right to keep and bear arms.

Fine in theory, but when everyone bears those same arms what happens? Society becomes as it has done in the USA with its huge gun crime problem. The universal right to bear arms might have been valid when the country was new and there were dangers at every turn, but in a stable and mature society it's just not necessary. The situation in the USA just cannot be used as an example of what other societies 'should' do; it's unique to America.

[Balthazar]

It must really drive you bonkers to know that the government issued me a concealed weapons permit and have passed the background check for several dozen firearms including full auto assault weapons but yet I support “anarchist terrorism”.

However, just think. If I lived in your little Nazi state I couldn't get any of those weapons even if I opposed anarchist terrorism.

Life is not fair is it? Freedom is a bummer, isn't it? Especially when you don't like the idea of other people having freedom because you are scared silly of those mean ole guns.

Thank God I live in a free country instead of an authoritative Nazi like regime.

On condition you're corralled in the US I couldn't give a damn about your popguns. If US citizens choose to live in a society with 25 times the firearms murder rate compared to Britain that's a matter for them. If they wish to arm right wing anarchists with full auto assault weapons, again that's their choice.

Second, it's excellent you come on the internet to discuss your weapons and political opinions. A normal, rational, person can be referred to your posts and furnished with a living, breathing, object lesson in why gun control is a vital social good.

Third, you referring to Britain as a 'Nazi state' and a 'Nazi like regime' exposes the soft underbelly of your position. Sure, there are problems with authoritarianism in Britain but if read your Patriot Acts you'll find similar, or worse, tendencies in the US. Yet neither nation is running death camps and, on the whole, the rule of law is holding. So you're telling hyperbolic fibs.

Why would a right-wing anarchist refer to a liberal democracy as a 'Nazi state'? At root it's selfishness: the child's demand to do what he wants, when he wants, and blow the consequences. It's one reason why Americans often strike Europeans as child-like and naive: the determination to enforce a personal, selfish, socially destructive vision of freedom regardless of the effects on neighbours and communities. It's essentially the behaviour of a spoilt child.

But you're not a child, you're an adult, and see yourself as a moral agent so will have difficulty admitting that your vision of freedom is selfish, child-like and destructive. So you wrap it up in self-serving guff about resisting 'Nazis' and being the 'last line of defence against tyrranical government.' (Yeah, where were you when the Patriot Acts passed into law?)

So, dear old Flash, you don't drive me bonkers. But normal, responsible, grown-ups should protect themselves from your childishness, and expose the essential selfishness of your juvenile anarchism.

Yeeehaaaaa!!


http://www.brightcecilia.com/forum/p...pictureid=2366

More child abuse from a gun nut

[pauli007001]

Because as the huge rate of gun crime in the USA clearly shows, the free availability of guns to any Tom, Dick or Harry usually (but not exclusively, it depends on the type of society involved) leads to far more of them being used in crime, consequent on which far more get used for defence, and so on in a vicious upwards spiral. With rare exceptions British society does not need to be armed to defend itself again criminals; to so do would simply exacerbate the problem, not solve it. Having said that, I do feel that it should be easier for a law abiding member of the public, i.e., someone with no criminal record and with good character references, to get a licence for a gun, including currently banned handguns, but only for sporting purposes and with the same restrictions we have now on use and storage.

Why is it difficult to get a licence for a rifle? Several reasons which include the fact that there's very little hunting in the UK compared to the USA, our open spaces are very much more limited with many more people likely to be out and about, and frankly there's very little interest amongst the general public to own a weapon that would have very limited use unless they were a gun club member, who in general can already obtain them.



Fine in theory, but when everyone bears those same arms what happens? Society becomes as it has done in the USA with its huge gun crime problem. The universal right to bear arms might have been valid when the country was new and there were dangers at every turn, but in a stable and mature society it's just not necessary. The situation in the USA just cannot be used as an example of what other societies 'should' do; it's unique to America.

Guns are not freely available to every Tom , Dick or Harry in the USA.There are restrictions on who can buy weapons.

In Gun Controll areas gun crime is higher than in areas of lesser gun controll.

The Gun crime rate in London for example is several times that of the town of Skowhegan, Maine.

NYC has srict gun controll laws and its gun crime is high, Rochester NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA(FED+State+City regulations)and Look at how the crime has soared there.

An ordinary person owning a weapon for self defense is perfectly acceptable, as is using said weapon.

We know in the UK that a homeowner defending his Life/home will be considered a criminal and jailed.Look at Tony Martin..........

[DougieG]

Guns are not freely available to every Tom , Dick or Harry in the USA.There are restrictions on who can buy weapons.

Doesn't stop pretty much every criminal having one, does it?

In Gun Controll areas gun crime is higher than in areas of lesser gun controll.

Yes, because criminals can just walk in with guns.

The Gun crime rate in London for example is several times that of the town of Skowhegan, Maine.

But London has the highest rate of gun crime, so it is only really comparable to the highest US rate of gun crime. How do Detroit or Chicago compare to London? I could commit the same fallacy and say that the town of Maidenhead, UK, has practically no gun crime whatsoever, and compare that to New York, where the difference will be +infinite%.

NYC has srict gun controll laws and its gun crime is high, Rochester NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA(FED+State+City regulations)and Look at how the crime has soared there.

Yes, but the UK has strict gun control and it has hardly any gun crime. Gun control doesn't work in the US because all your criminals already have guns. Ours don't and legalising them would just increase our crime rate 25 times over up to that of the US.

An ordinary person owning a weapon for self defense is perfectly acceptable, as is using said weapon.

Only if the person they are defending against has a gun too. And in the UK criminals don't tend to have guns, so we don't need guns either.

We know in the UK that a homeowner defending his Life/home will be considered a criminal and jailed.Look at Tony Martin..........

That's nothing to do with gun control, and yes it would be stupid IF IT WAS TRUE. Except Tony Martin's case was utterly different. He shot two burglars who were running away with none of his possessions, killing one and wounding the other. I know there's a twisted sense of morality in the US but I don't consider killing a fleeing man to ever be right. If he had been coming at the farmer with a knife, then I'd support shooting him, but that simply wasn't the case. Furthermore, Tony Martin didn't bother calling the police, instead going to his mother's house and trying to avoid confronting the issue. Had he phoned them right away and explained what had happened it would have put him in a much better light. As it was, the mens rea implies that he was at fault - he evidently had a very guilty conscience.

In addition to this, it was a jury trial that convicted him of murder. 12 supposedly reasonable members of the British public. The government etc had nothing to do with it, and they could have convicted him of manslaughter instead had they thought that he wasn't to blame. As it was, he killed a fleeing man in cold blood, and though it may have been reasonable to shoot him in the leg and then wait for the police, it seems that the foreseeability of him killing the burglar was enough for it to have seemed obvious to the reasonable man that some serious harm was going to be caused.

[flash]

Third, you referring to Britain as a 'Nazi state'

Hitler took away the right to keep and bear arms in Germany the same as you have done in the UK.

Hitler had the support of the people like the government that took away most of the RTKBA rights in Nazi Germany just like in the UK.

The people in Germany did not protest the restriction because Hitler convinced them they were more safe without the weapons. After all they had trust in their government so why did the citizens need weapons? The same mindset you have in the UK.

The analogies of the UK to that part of the Nazi regime are valid. It is childish for you do deny them.

On condition you're corralled in the US I couldn't give a damn about your popguns. If US citizens choose to live in a society with 25 times the firearms murder rate compared to Britain that's a matter for them. If they wish to arm right wing anarchists with full auto assault weapons, again that's their choice.

Actually it is not a choice; it is the law of the land.

We establish this law when you British tried to confiscate weapons from us as we were defending our homes from British brutality.

Our government also believes in free speech, which allows me to voice my opinions on the opposition to government tyranny and to own weapons. That kind of freedom must really scare you, doesn't it?

I have never committed a crime with a firearm even though I own dozen of military type weapons and I am a stanch defender of the right of the people to hold the government accountable for government abuse. The government trusts me to be able to speak my mind and to keep and bear arms because it trusts its citizen. That is real freedom.

You live in a country where the government doesn’t trust you at all. If the government doesn't trust you why should you trust the government?

A normal, rational, person can be referred to your posts and furnished with a living, breathing, object lesson in why gun control is a vital social good.

How is taking away a person's right to defend themselves and their family and to have the ability to hold the government accountable for abuse a "vital social good"?

You have it wrong on that silly little assertion. The vital social good is for each citizen to be able to protect themselves if the need be.

A normal rational person would want to have the ability to protect themselves, wouldn't they?

It is irrational and weak minded not to mention just plain stupid to trust your own well being to the good nature of crooks and the good intentions of the vital social agenda of the government, isn't it?

The Jews in Nazi Germany found out the hard way what can happen when you allow the govenment to have all the weapons and you have none.

More child abuse from a gun nut

Hardly child abuse. It looks like the child is safely learning how to use a weapon and that is a good thing. Notice he has eye protection and it looks like the instructor knows what he is doing.

What is child abuse is raising a child in a home where the child it at the mercy of crooks.

It is even more child abuse to raise a child by brainwashing them to be weak minded and to not take responsibility for their own security.

My first granddaughter was born back in July. When she is around nine years old I will take her to the range and show her how to shoot if she has an interest to do so. When she 12 I will buy her a small caliber rifle for her very own if I think she would want one. When she is older I would buy her a rifle like an AK-47 or an AR15 if she has interest at all in firearms. When she turns 18 I will buy her a pistol so she can defend herself. When she turns 21 I will help encourage her to get her concealed weapons permit so that she can carry the pistol around to protect herself if the need be.

She will also inherit a portion of my gun collection when I go to the Big Gun Range in the Sky.

Explain to me how that is child abuse.

[DougieG]

Hitler took away the right to keep and bear arms in Germany the same as you have done in the UK.

Godwin's Law. You lose.

[Midas]

...... When she turns 21 I will help encourage her to get her concealed weapons permit so that she can carry the pistol around to protect herself if the need be.

That says a great deal about the type of society you live in Flash, when you think that people need a concealed weapon to be able to defend themselves!

[flash]

Because as the huge rate of gun crime in the USA clearly shows

Actually there is not a huge rate of gun crime in the US.

Remember that we are a nation of 300,000,000 so anything is huge. For instance, we have a huge number of swimming pool drownings a year because we have a huge number of people that own swimming pools.

There are about 30,000 deaths a year due to guns.

About half of them are suicides. Sorry but I don't think I need to have my right to keep and bear arms taken away from me because somebody else uses a gun to commit suicide.

There are a few accidental deaths each year but the number is reasonable and in line with other accidental deaths like drowning, or electrical.

Of the remaining deaths most of them are gang or criminal related deaths. Most has to do with the drug business one way or another.

It is unreasonable to think that any criminal activity would be decreased because of additional firearms laws. Crooks are not going to stop their activity just because there is a law against it.

For instance , Washington DC has a population of about 500,000 people the same as the State of North Dakota. In DC it is almost impossible to legally own a firearm but yet the gun crime rate in the mostly Black part of that city is horrendous.

In North Dakota almost everybody owns a firearm and the crime rate there is very low.

Now you tell me what good would it be to impose firearm restrictions on the people of North Dakota when they hardly ever use their firearms in a crime? What would be gained? Also, how would additional firearms regulation in DC do any good when the bad guys don't adhere to very strict existing laws?

Here in Florida if you brandish a gun for any reason and you are not defending yourself then there is a mandatory 3 years in jail. No getting out early or no plea deals. Most states have laws like that.

This means that if some asshole pisses me off over a parking place in downtown Tampa I had better not take out my carry weapon and threaten to blow his head off because I will be spending the next three years in Raiford Prison trying to convince Leroy that I am not his sex object.

I think the second time you do that it is 10 years mandatory and the third it is 20 so they law has pretty well removed from the streets those people likely to stupidly use a gun.

Because of that law very few people will use a gun unless they are hard core crooks. Crime rates have decreased significantly since the passage of the law.

the free availability of guns to any Tom, Dick or Harry usually (but not exclusively, it depends on the type of society involved) leads to far more of them being used in crime, consequent on which far more get used for defence, and so on in a vicious upwards spiral.

I am sorry but I don't agree that my right to keep and bare arms should be taken away from me because somebody else uses a firearm in a crime.

It is like taking away my right to free speech because somebody else says something the government doesn't like.

We already have many reasonable firearms laws in the US. It is against the law to use a firearm in a crime. There is no reason to believe that crime will decrease just because there are more restrictions.

With rare exceptions British society does not need to be armed to defend itself again criminals; to so do would simply exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

The violent crime rate here in Florida decreased substantially when the state started to issue concealed weapons permits. It has been that way in many other states.

The number of home invasions and break ins decreased substantially when the state passed the Castile Doctrine law which states that you have the right to kill anybody that breaks into your home because the assumption is that they are there to do you bodily harm. No criminal charge, no law suits and no second guessing for the homeowner.

Fine in theory, but when everyone bears those same arms what happens? Society becomes as it has done in the USA with its huge gun crime problem. The universal right to bear arms might have been valid when the country was new and there were dangers at every turn, but in a stable and mature society it's just not necessary. The situation in the USA just cannot be used as an example of what other societies 'should' do; it's unique to America.

As a Brit you are welcome to that opinion but our Founding Fathers felt it was a basic right to keep and bear arms. It is second only to the right of free speech and the right of religion. It is the right that is the ultimate garreteer of all the other rights.

We fought hard against the strongest military in the world to establish that right and we are not going to give it up. As a Brit I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

[DougieG]

Actually there is not a huge rate of gun crime in the US.

Remember that we are a nation of 300,000,000 so anything is huge. For instance, we have a huge number of swimming pool drownings a year because we have a huge number of people that own swimming pools.

There are about 30,000 deaths a year due to guns.

About half of them are suicides. Sorry but I don't think I need to have my right to keep and bear arms taken away from me because somebody else uses a gun to commit suicide.

There are a few accidental deaths each year but the number is reasonable and in line with other accidental deaths like drowning, or electrical.

Of the remaining deaths most of them are gang or criminal related deaths. Most has to do with the drug business one way or another.

It is unreasonable to think that any criminal activity would be decreased because of additional firearms laws. Crooks are not going to stop their activity just because there is a law against it.

For instance , Washington DC has a population of about 500,000 people the same as the State of North Dakota. In DC it is almost impossible to legally own a firearm but yet the gun crime rate in the mostly Black part of that city is horrendous.

In North Dakota almost everybody owns a firearm and the crime rate there is very low.

Now you tell me what good would it be to impose firearm restrictions on the people of North Dakota when they hardly ever use their firearms in a crime? What would be gained? Also, how would additional firearms regulation in DC do any good when the bad guys don't adhere to very strict existing laws?

Here in Florida if you brandish a gun for any reason and you are not defending yourself then there is a mandatory 3 years in jail. No getting out early or no plea deals. Most states have laws like that.

This means that if some asshole pisses me off over a parking place in downtown Tampa I had better not take out my carry weapon and threaten to blow his head off because I will be spending the next three years in Raiford Prison trying to convince Leroy that I am not his sex object.

I think the second time you do that it is 10 years mandatory and the third it is 20 so they law has pretty well removed from the streets those people likely to stupidly use a gun.

Because of that law very few people will use a gun unless they are hard core crooks. Crime rates have decreased significantly since the passage of the law.

You still have 25 times more gun crime per head than the UK. Its not about the size of the country. You've lost the debate already anyway

[flash]

That says a great deal about the type of society you live in Flash, when you think that people need a concealed weapon to be able to defend themselves!

What it says is that we take personal responsibility for our own freedom instead of depending upon the state to be our protector. It is an American mindset that an European would not understand.

I have a concealed weapons permit. That means I can legally carry a pistol almost anywhere I want.

I very seldom will carry my weapon out of my house because there is no reason to do so. I live in a safe area. In the many years I have been living in Central Florida I have never been the subject of a crime and I have never even had a personal acquaintance that I know that has been attacked.

There is crime around but it is mostly confined to the bad parts of the bigger cities, just like in the UK. I live in a safe area.

It is not about having an absolute need. It is about having the freedom to make the choice to protect myself or not.

There were also places that I saw when visiting in London that I would not want to go into with some kind of personal protection.

In 1968 while visiting Austrialia on RR we were given a briefing on the areas of Syndney to stay away from due to the possiblity of crime.

By the way, next week I am going to El Paso Texas to see my son off on his deployment. I am debating on whether or not to take my concealed weapon or not. It is safe around Ft Bliss where I will be staying but there is a significant problem in the city with the Mexican drug gangs spilling over from the border.

[Tantal]

By the way, next week I am going to El Paso Texas to see my son off on his deployment. I am debating on whether or not to take my concealed weapon or not. It is safe around Ft Bliss where I will be staying but there is a significant problem in the city with the Mexican drug gangs spilling over from the border.

Definitely carry, Flash. If you're flying, just take the pistol and 2 spare mags. If you're driving, throw an M4 in the trunk. Whenever I leave town, I throw my rifle bag in the back of the 'Cruiser. It's got my M4, 10 mags, and 2 spare G17 mags and a Glock 33-rounder. Better to have it and not need it............

[Midas]

Actually there is not a huge rate of gun crime in the US.

Remember that we are a nation of 300,000,000 so anything is huge. For instance, we have a huge number of swimming pool drownings a year because we have a huge number of people that own swimming pools.

There are about 30,000 deaths a year due to guns.

About half of them are suicides. Sorry but I don't think I need to have my right to keep and bear arms taken away from me because somebody else uses a gun to commit suicide.

There are a few accidental deaths each year but the number is reasonable and in line with other accidental deaths like drowning, or electrical.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion! In the few minutes I've had to quickly look at a few figures, produced by the US Department of Justice, the UK Home Office and the latest UN International Crime Survey, the rate of murders by firearms in the US is 2.97 per 100,000 people compared to 0.12 per 100,000 in the UK. Crimes which involve guns in one way or another in the US represent 9% of all recorded crime, whereas here in the UK that figure stands at 0.1%. Somewhat at odds with your remark "Actually there is not a huge rate of gun crime in the US" methinks!

[ ... ]

As a Brit you are welcome to that opinion but our Founding Fathers felt it was a basic right to keep and bear arms. It is second only to the right of free speech and the right of religion. It is the right that is the ultimate garreteer of all the other rights.

We fought hard against the strongest military in the world to establish that right and we are not going to give it up. As a Brit I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

Just because something which might have been right 400 years ago under totally different circumstances doesn't automatically make it right today though does it. As I've already pointed out, your society is totally different to ours and guns and gun crime are already endemic, so what you consider might be right for you isn't necessarily right for us, where the whole situation is totally different. I don't think you understand that!

[Midas]

What it says is that we take personal responsibility for our own freedom instead of depending upon the state to be our protector. It is an American mindset that an European would not understand.

What it says to me is that you live in a crime-ridden society where you have to carry a gun to feel safe!

In 1968 while visiting Austrialia on RR we were given a briefing on the areas of Syndney to stay away from due to the possiblity of crime.

Hmm, whilst all cities have elevated levels of crime, that sounds more like American paranoia than anything!

By the way, next week I am going to El Paso Texas to see my son off on his deployment. I am debating on whether or not to take my concealed weapon or not. It is safe around Ft Bliss where I will be staying but there is a significant problem in the city with the Mexican drug gangs spilling over from the border.

Again, a good illustration of the society you have over there.