NationStates Jolt Archive

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime. It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK. Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime. It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK. Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?
Well you do have drive by...arguments.

Jesus wept.

Less entrenched gun culture. Can't really compare the two. Please stop.

Less entrenched gun culture. Can't really compare the two. Please stop.

So would it be fair to say that the pro gun lobby have actually no advantages in guns, merely that it fits better into your culture? :rolleyes:

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime. It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK. Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?
When you passed your gun laws you didn't have as many guns in circulation. We could ban all guns in the USA today, but the criminals won't give theirs up. All of a sudden we'd have an unarmed "law abiding" population confronted by a criminal population that's just as well armed as ever.

So would it be fair to say that the pro gun lobby have actually no advantages in guns, merely that it fits better into your culture? :rolleyes:
It is part of our culture, and gun ownership has advantages as well. Our gun laws are our choice, not yours. You might as well drop the subject.

When you passed your gun laws you didn't have as many guns in circulation. We could ban all guns in the USA today, but the criminals won't give theirs up. All of a sudden we'd have an unarmed "law abiding" population confronted by a criminal population that's just as well armed as ever.

Taking away all the guns in circulation is precisely what people are trying to do in Afganistan. Are you saying it is impossible?

If so, we shall wait and see if Afganistan works, and if it does, will America follow suit?

It is part of our culture, and gun ownership has advantages as well. Our gun laws are our choice, not yours. You might as well drop the subject.

Well it seems hypocritical to me to complain about high murder rates and yet support gun ownership. Bottom line is more guns = more likleyhood of deaths.

So would it be fair to say that the pro gun lobby have actually no advantages in guns, merely that it fits better into your culture? :rolleyes:
I'm British.

Taking away all the guns in circulation is precisely what people are trying to do in Afganistan. Are you saying it is impossible?

If so, we shall wait and see if Afganistan works, and if it does, will America follow suit?
Why would we want to follow suit? We're happy being a gun owning nation. Every freedom comes with consequences. We're willing to accept the consequences of gun ownership. Why do you even care about our laws? They don't affect you in the least. It's pretty fucking arrogant of you to try to tell us to limit the rights our people have in our own country.

Your argument for gun ownership was 'well, they'd be too hard to get rid of'.

Wouldn't an unarmed criminal population mean less people were killed because it is harder to stab someone than shoot them?

Why would we want to follow suit? We're happy being a gun owning nation. Every freedom comes with consequences. We're willing to accept the consequences of gun ownership. Why do you even care about our laws? They don't affect you in the least. It's pretty fucking arrogant of you to try to tell us to limit the rights our people have in our own country.

Firstly, dont swear. All swearing demonstrates is a lack of vocabulary

Secondly, the reason I care about it is I get rather fed up of being told by Americans on this board that "gun control is wrong" and that it is evil and akin to totalitarinism to control guns, when the UK is a free and functioning democracy with very strict gun laws.

Thirdly, isn't telling other people the extent of their rights and wrongs precisely what the Americans are doing all over the world today?

Why would we want to follow suit? We're happy being a gun owning nation. Every freedom comes with consequences. We're willing to accept the consequences of gun ownership. Why do you even care about our laws? They don't affect you in the least. It's pretty fucking arrogant of you to try to tell us to limit the rights our people have in our own country.

It's "pretty fucking arrogant" of you to assume that people should not be allowed to critique your laws.

Well it seems hypocritical to me to complain about high murder rates and yet support gun ownership. Bottom line is more guns = more likleyhood of deaths.
Um, when exactly did I complain about high murder rates? Police officers and criminals, the people who have the highest rate of mortality due to murder are still more likely to die in a motor vehicle collision. The murder risk even for them is very low. I'm really not worried about it.

Your argument for gun ownership was 'well, they'd be too hard to get rid of'.

Wouldn't an unarmed criminal population mean less people were killed because it is harder to stab someone than shoot them?
If you'd look at my other posts I said that we as a nation accept the consequences of gun ownership in exchange for the right to own guns. It's a trade off we're willing to make.

It's "pretty fucking arrogant" of you to assume that people should not be allowed to critique your laws.

No, no, no. Every country should be allowed to decide its own laws. Like Iraq was... and Iran... and South Korea...

And stoning women to death for adultery? Who are we to complain?

Firstly, dont swear. All swearing demonstrates is a lack of vocabulary

Secondly, the reason I care about it is I get rather fed up of being told by Americans on this board that "gun control is wrong" and that it is evil and akin to totalitarinism to control guns, when the UK is a free and functioning democracy with very strict gun laws.

Thirdly, isn't telling other people the extent of their rights and wrongs precisely what the Americans are doing all over the world today?
Unfortunately, no we're not telling people the extent of their rights. If we were going around enforcing human rights Sudan and N. Korea would have undergone regime change.

A gun owning society isn't morally equivalent to a society that permits slavery, like Sudan, or a society that stones women to death for being raped, like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The English have a long history of weapons control, going back to the long bow and sword. It may work for them. The USA learned early on, that weapons in the hands of citizens, will prevent the return of dictator's, King's and other poor forms of government.
The USA does not need gun control, we need strict punishment for criminal use of weapons.

ERB-I

No, no, no. Every country should be allowed to decide its own laws. Like Iraq was... and Iran... and South Korea...

And stoning women to death for adultery? Who are we to complain?
Right. Because permitting ordinary citizens to own guns is the exact moral equivalent of stoning a rape victim to death for adultery.

Right. Because permitting ordinary citizens to own guns is the exact moral equivalent of stoning a rape victim to death for adultery.

No, but if we cannot complain about your laws, then how can we complain about theirs?

Show me the precise line on which laws can be criticised, and which cannot.

No, but if we cannot complain about your laws, then how can we complain about theirs?

Show me the precise line on which laws can be criticised, and which cannot.

Presactly - it's like yesterday's thread on that antiwar site: Free speech either *is* or *is not*.

Taking away all the guns in circulation is precisely what people are trying to do in Afganistan. Are you saying it is impossible?

If so, we shall wait and see if Afganistan works, and if it does, will America follow suit?

i sure as hell hope that america doesn't follow suit and renege on the 2nd amendment rights

if all of our guns are taken away, what's to keep an American Hitler or Stalin from completely subjugating us?

also there's the problem of taking them away from criminals... fat chance they'd willfully give up their guns.

if all of our guns are taken away, what's to keep an American Hitler or Stalin from completely subjugating us?
Not voting for them? The army?

Firstly, dont swear. All swearing demonstrates is a lack of vocabulary

Secondly, the reason I care about it is I get rather fed up of being told by Americans on this board that "gun control is wrong" and that it is evil and akin to totalitarinism to control guns, when the UK is a free and functioning democracy with very strict gun laws.

Thirdly, isn't telling other people the extent of their rights and wrongs precisely what the Americans are doing all over the world today?

I get rather fed up of being told by socialists that "guns kill people" and that therefore they are "wrong" for citizens to have. On that basis you may as well say they are wrong for the military to have too! Same with cars. Cars kill people and cause crime. Without cars, there would be no grand theft auto. Without cars, there wouldn't be drunk driving 'accidents' or examples of 'road rage.' Without cars there wouldn't be so much strife over oil. Should we ban cars? No, the people are not in favor of banning cars. Apparently, Americans are not in favor of banning guns either.

What works in the UK doesn't necessarily work in the US and vice versa. If it did, maybe we'd let the UK decide USA laws.

If gun controls are so fine, how do you explain... oh, I don't know, Nazi Germany? Good thing they had that nice ban on possession, made it easier to round up minorities for mass execution!

In the 20th century guess who murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the wars combined?

a - Governments
b - Private handgun owners

I'll give you two guesses.

In the American Revolution against British Imperialist troops how were the Americans armed?

a - No guns, because guns kill people.
b - Few guns, because guns kill people and layers of bureacracy saves lives
b - Guns

I'll give you THREE guesses!

I don't expect you to agree with anyone on gun control, but surely you can at least see why most Americans are a little hesitant to disarm themselves for "safety" reasons.

i sure as hell hope that america doesn't follow suit and renege on the 2nd amendment rights

if all of our guns are taken away, what's to keep an American Hitler or Stalin from completely subjugating us?

also there's the problem of taking them away from criminals... fat chance they'd willfully give up their guns.

FOR FUCK SAKE YOU THICK SHIT AMERICANS

Hitler didn't subjicate SHIT. They VOTED HIM IN. They LOVED HIM.

NO dictators get into power without either popular support, or military support, and guns DON'T DO SHIT in the face of either of those

The USA learned early on, that weapons in the hands of citizens, will prevent the return of dictator's, King's and other poor forms of government

The UK has never had a dictatior. That does nothing for your point.

Why would we want to follow suit? We're happy being a gun owning nation. Every freedom comes with consequences. We're willing to accept the consequences of gun ownership. Why do you even care about our laws? They don't affect you in the least. It's pretty fucking arrogant of you to try to tell us to limit the rights our people have in our own country.
and its pretty fucking arrogant of you to refuse to listen to others' opinions or ideas simply because they are not your own :rolleyes:


Well it seems hypocritical to me to complain about high murder rates and yet support gun ownership. Bottom line is more guns = more likleyhood of deaths.


Neo Cannen is right. fewer guns = fewer gun related violent crimes & a safter world.
plus, it may be hard to do, but it is possible to remove guns from a society. a few years a go i remember when new knife legislation came in in the UK and most people, law-abiding or not, handed in their newly-illegal knives. similarly, to the best of my understanding, the IRA in Ireland, and illegal paramilitary organisation - more organised and, to be frank, die-hard than many of the criminals you say would stay armed in the US - agreed to, and did hand over much of their weaponry, which included far more than just a few handguns or rifles. so it is possible to do. yes it wouldn't be easy to do it or as large a country as the US, but it could be done if you wanted it done.

is freedom of rights really worth sacrificing your own safety?


edit:

I get rather fed up of being told by socialists that "guns kill people" and that therefore they are "wrong" for citizens to have. On that basis you may as well say they are wrong for the military to have too! Same with cars. Cars kill people and cause crime. Without cars, there would be no grand theft auto. Without cars, there wouldn't be drunk driving 'accidents' or examples of 'road rage.' Without cars there wouldn't be so much strife over oil. Should we ban cars? No, the people are not in favor of banning cars. Apparently, Americans are not in favor of banning guns either.
well i'm a socialist and i say that there should be no military at all. but that's another issue.

and there's no need to be ridiculous & pedantic. cars are not designed to kill people, guns are.

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime.Yes, but if I want my home robbed while I'm home, the UK is the place to be. In America, criminals are smart and don't want to be shot. In the UK, they're also smart, but have no chance of getting shot. Violent crimes committed upon citizens in their own homes is vastly higher in the UK than it is in the US. Armed robbery/muggings also drops remarkably in areas where right to carry laws are enacted.
It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK.Unless you consider being insecure in your own home or getting robbed and beaten up a "major problem"
Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?How does the anti-gun lobby explain Switzerland,with mandatory gun ownership, and a murder rate lower than the UK? And for that matter, how do you explain Washington, DC with the most stringent gun laws in America and one of the highest murder rates?

Maybe because you're trying to compare apples and oranges?

No, but if we cannot complain about your laws, then how can we complain about theirs?

Show me the precise line on which laws can be criticised, and which cannot.
You can complain, but don't try to dictate what our laws should be when they actually increase, not decrease personal freedom. I realize that you weren't trying to dictate our laws to us. I only overreacted because sometimes it seems like Europeans are trying to tell us what our laws should be.

FOR FUCK SAKE YOU THICK SHIT AMERICANS

Hitler didn't subjicate SHIT. They VOTED HIM IN. They LOVED HIM.

NO dictators get into power without either popular support, or military support, and guns DON'T DO SHIT in the face of either of those


Exactly. Any such attempt at power grabbing would require military support.

I'd love to see how the average gun owner does against a squadron of marines or how the local NRA group does against a SEAL team.

The simple fact is that the 2nd Amendment line about governments is poo. There is no way in hell that any armed citizenry could stand up against the US military.

Unless you consider being insecure in your own home or getting robbed and beaten up a "major problem"

It can't be that much of a major problem, because I don't think I've ever been concerned by the possibility in my life. Maybe it's because I blithely assume that the majority of burglars have the sense to break into a house while the occupants are absent.

Why would we want to follow suit? We're happy being a gun owning nation. Every freedom comes with consequences. We're willing to accept the consequences of gun ownership. Why do you even care about our laws? They don't affect you in the least. It's pretty fucking arrogant of you to try to tell us to limit the rights our people have in our own country.
An American telling someone there arrogant? Funniest thing i have ever read ROFL!!!!!

Neo Cannen is right. fewer guns = fewer gun related violent crimes & a safter world.
plus, it may be hard to do, but it is possible to remove guns from a society. a few years a go i remember when new knife legislation came in in the UK and most people, law-abiding or not, handed in their newly-illegal knives. similarly, to the best of my understanding, the IRA in Ireland, and illegal paramilitary organisation - more organised and, to be frank, die-hard than many of the criminals you say would stay armed in the US - agreed to, and did hand over much of their weaponry, which included far more than just a few handguns or rifles. so it is possible to do. yes it wouldn't be easy to do it or as large a country as the US, but it could be done if you wanted it done.

is freedom of rights really worth sacrificing your own safety?


edit:


well i'm a socialist and i say that there should be no military at all. but that's another issue.

and there's no need to be ridiculous & pedantic. cars are not designed to kill people, guns are.
First of all, the odds of being shot are lower than the odds of being killed crossing a street. The murder rate, including not just shootings, but stabbings, beatings, etc. is actually not all that high compared to the number of deaths from illness, or the number of deaths from motor vehicle accidents, or the number of deaths from other types of accidents. The sacrifice of freedom for that tiny bit of extra security just isn't worth it to most Americans.

Oh, and guns are designed for a large number of reasons. Hunting, target shooting, and defense are all legitimate reasons to own a gun. Not all killing is wrong. That's why we have such a thing as justifiable homicide. I'd much rather see a woman shoot the guy attempting to rape her than have her endure a rape for want of a weapon. The US has made it's decision. We accept the consequences in return for the freedom.

It can't be that much of a major problem, because I don't think I've ever been concerned by the possibility in my life. Maybe it's because I blithely assume that the majority of burglars have the sense to break into a house while the occupants are absent.
You're more likely to be robbed while home in the UK than you are to be shot in the US.

Could it be you're more afraid of guns because of the press, instead of because of actual statistics?

An American telling someone there arrogant? Funniest thing i have ever read ROFL!!!!!
Feeling a bit superior there? Could be a symptom of arrogance. Laugh it up pal.

I get rather fed up of being told by socialists that "guns kill people" and that therefore they are "wrong" for citizens to have.

What does socialism have to do with gun control? Im socialist and I support gun ownership, in fact I own several myself.


If gun controls are so fine, how do you explain... oh, I don't know, Nazi Germany? Good thing they had that nice ban on possession, made it easier to round up minorities for mass execution!

Actually, gun control was put into place in Germany in 1928 in order to disarm the radical groups (which included the Nazis) and prevent them from taking power by force. This tactic worked. The Nazis were unable to come to power until they were democratically elected. If you think that guns in the hands of minorities would have protected them from the whole army coming after them, you are delusional.

I approve of private gun ownership. But lets not spread lies in order to support our cause.

Your argument for gun ownership was 'well, they'd be too hard to get rid of'.

Wouldn't an unarmed criminal population mean less people were killed because it is harder to stab someone than shoot them?

You don't quite grasp the concept, do you? The criminal population would not be unarmed because...well...they are criminals and do you honestly think a criminal is going to say "oh, look, they passed a gun ban, guess we'll go down to the courthouse tomorrow and turn in our guns." Of course not! A criminal by definition doesn't care what the law says, and therefore banning all guns won't do jack squat about guns in the hands of criminals. If anything, it would most likely spawn quite the robust black market.

On the flipside, guns...are an American tradition. Over in Britain the guns were for the most part in the hands of the military, however, when it came time to colonize America, most people hunted for their food, and this meant they had guns. And mind you I don't mean just a few, lots of people had guns, take a look at the historical records of the time and you will see this. Then came the revolution and what was once hunter and his hunting rifle became a militiaman and his weapon. This is of course what proved decisive at such battles as Lexington and Concord where the colonists muskets were actually more accurate than the British military weapons because they were hunting weapons designed for accuracy whereas the British, still fighting wars Napoleanic style, were using weapons meant to send a mass of lead downrage at once. Anyway, I digress.

The founding fathers saw how well this had worked during the war, and so in the bill of rights added the 2nd amendment to ensure that in case of future conflicts, the militia would have their weapons at the ready to defend the nation. Of course this was before the advent of a well equipped standing army. The fact that it was 2nd in a collection of 10 is significant, as it shows the importance...it comes right behind free speech. Symbolically the 1st declares the American right of freedom, the 2nd ensures its survival. Of course with the coming of a well equipped standing army capable of defending the nation this would seem redundant...but read on.

The push west in the 1800's epitomizes the American love of guns. Stories of cowboys and gunfights and incredible lawlessness where men were gun down in streets daily flourished. This was of course a vast exageration of reality. Yes there were gunfights and criminals and an absence of a viable police force, but blood did not in fact "run in the streets" so to speak. Why? Because most citizens carried guns. A criminal pulling a stunt was liable to find himself the object of the wrath of an armed populace. This was as a result of the lack of a real system of law. You might argue that with the coming of real law enforcement in the west that it would mean an end to gun ownership...but we're not quite done yet.

Today we're at what? Oh, 229 years of existence as a nation? And from day one we've been brandishing our oh-so-contested guns, which is quite the tradition that has become woven into the fabric of our society. After all of this, there is no way to disarm the populace. I can guaruntee you, you outlaw guns and you will find yourself dealing with far more outlaws than you expect. Not in the sense that criminals prior to the ban will have multiplied...but you find that many law abiding citizens will not give up their guns and therefore they will become outlaws. You try telling a 6'6" stetson wearing Texan to give up his six-shooter and see what happens. It's not enforceable. You would essentially exponentially increase the criminal population of the country because they won't give them up after roughly 230 years of tradition. The sportsmen hunt, the protection wary people carry their pistols, and the wackos in the woods have their AK-47s...and yes the criminals have their guns too...but there are far more law abiding citizens with guns than criminals. The cost and political clout necessary to try to pass this would be impossible to muster. In brief:

1) the fact it requires a constitutional amendment and there would never be that kind of support

2) the American tradition of gun ownership which began as hunter to militia to law enforcement to modern day hunting/protection/sport has permanently cemented guns into the culture

3) the cost of enforcement and the fact that the law abiding gun owners won't give them up and would therefore become outlaws, making a man a criminal simply because he owns a .45 or a shotgun, deters serious gun ban efforts

These three are the major reasons Americans do not have to suffer under a gun ban. This has been your history lesson of the day, thank you for reading.

You're more likely to be robbed while home in the UK than you are to be shot in the US.

Eh? So? Comparing two completely different statistics doesn't prove anything, except that your argument is a strawman.

Exactly. Any such attempt at power grabbing would require military support.

I'd love to see how the average gun owner does against a squadron of marines or how the local NRA group does against a SEAL team.

The simple fact is that the 2nd Amendment line about governments is poo. There is no way in hell that any armed citizenry could stand up against the US military.


Hey yeah, so lets make it EASIER for them! Why bother trying, just give in!

People said there was no way for "armed citizenry" to stand up against the best-trained and equipped military in the American Revolution, too.

You know, there's no way the average rape victim can physically overpower her assailant. Let's make sure she doesn't have anything to even the odds - since she'll get raped anyway, right? [/appeal to emotion]

I get rather fed up of being told by socialists that "guns kill people" and that therefore they are "wrong" for citizens to have. On that basis you may as well say they are wrong for the military to have too! Same with cars. Cars kill people and cause crime. Without cars, there would be no grand theft auto. Without cars, there wouldn't be drunk driving 'accidents' or examples of 'road rage.' Without cars there wouldn't be so much strife over oil. Should we ban cars? No, the people are not in favor of banning cars. Apparently, Americans are not in favor of banning guns either.

The flaw in that arguement is that thee specific purpose of guns is to kill people, unlike cars which are specificly designed to transport people.


What works in the UK doesn't necessarily work in the US and vice versa. If it did, maybe we'd let the UK decide USA laws.

Its fair to critise other governments, I am asking Americans to defend themselves


If gun controls are so fine, how do you explain... oh, I don't know, Nazi Germany? Good thing they had that nice ban on possession, made it easier to round up minorities for mass execution!

This is exactly the kind of ignorence I am talking about. Many Americans will instantly assume that disarmerment is a prelude to some form of dictatorship. Its not.

The UK has never had a dictatior. That does nothing for your point.

Every monarch until Charles I was a dictator. I'll accept that and I'm English.

First of all, the odds of being shot are lower than the odds of being killed crossing a street. The murder rate, including not just shootings, but stabbings, beatings, etc. is actually not all that high compared to the number of deaths from illness, or the number of deaths from motor vehicle accidents, or the number of deaths from other types of accidents. The sacrifice of freedom for that tiny bit of extra security just isn't worth it to most Americans.

Oh, and guns are designed for a large number of reasons. Hunting, target shooting, and defense are all legitimate reasons to own a gun. Not all killing is wrong. That's why we have such a thing as justifiable homicide. I'd much rather see a woman shoot the guy attempting to rape her than have her endure a rape for want of a weapon. The US has made it's decision. We accept the consequences in return for the freedom.
fair enough, i have no authority or right to tell you what to do. but i still think its crazy. guns ARE designed for killing, whatever the purpose of that killing may be, they are weapons - and the best, most effective & deadly weapon, before you get to explosives & bombs, there is.

plus, just because more people die from other causes than gun related injuries, doesn't mean you can ignore those injuries and deaths caused by guns. if the guns were not there, those deaths would not occur. fact.

oh, and the idea of 'justifiable homicide' sickens me

Every monarch until Charles I was a dictator. I'll accept that and I'm English.

The UK didn't exist until about 60 years after Charles I was executed.

The UK didn't exist until about 60 years after Charles I was executed.

And until then every national leader in what would be the UK was a dictator.

I'm getting rather sick of the logic "The US is better than the UK because the UK used to have kings which were dictatiors". The reason we had kings is suprise suprise, the British Isles have a history which goes further back than 225 years. So of course we have more primative government systems previously, the only reason Americans had democracy from the start is that America was created and moulded by the European's into what it is now when democracy WAS a common feture of government.

What does socialism have to do with gun control? Im socialist and I support gun ownership, in fact I own several myself.

Well, what does "Americans" have to do with gun control. This was a mirror statement designed to reflect back on the generalizations of the original post it was responding to, not a statement that all socialists are pro-gun-control.



Actually, gun control was put into place in Germany in 1928 in order to disarm the radical groups (which included the Nazis)

And in 1938 to disarm the OTHER 'radical groups' to prevent them from... existing.

That tactic worked too.

and prevent them from taking power by force. This tactic worked. The Nazis were unable to come to power until they were democratically elected. If you think that guns in the hands of minorities would have protected them from the whole army coming after them, you are delusional.

I must be delusional then. I'm not willing to concede that because there are a lot of enemies, having a gun is completely useless. That is fatalistic stupidity that leads to surrender whenever the odds look bad. Sorry, I don't see the use of this kind of thinking. I have this little tendency towards self-survival that prevents me from laying down meekly and giving up.

I approve of private gun ownership. But lets not spread lies in order to support our cause.

I'm not spreading lies.

FOR FUCK SAKE YOU THICK SHIT AMERICANS

Hitler didn't subjicate SHIT. They VOTED HIM IN. They LOVED HIM.

NO dictators get into power without either popular support, or military support, and guns DON'T DO SHIT in the face of either of those

idiot, Hitler took away Germans' guns AFTER they voted him in... lol

this is salient: do you think it would have been half as easy to round up an ARMED Jewish people as it was for Hitler and his SS?

lol

if you're not armed, you're a subject... subject to the whim of your government. If they go nuts, you're out of luck.

I'm getting rather sick of the logic "The US is better than the UK because the UK used to have kings which were dictatiors". The reason we had kings is suprise suprise, the British Isles have a history which goes further back than 225 years. So of course we have more primative government systems previously, the only reason Americans had democracy from the start is that America was created and moulded by the European's into what it is now when democracy WAS a common feture of government.

Jolly good show.I'll get my butler to make you some tea.

Eh? So? Comparing two completely different statistics doesn't prove anything, except that your argument is a strawman.Not a strawman.
Nice to accuse me of a fallacy (incorrectly) when your assumption of "no problem" was a tremendous fallacy.

You implied that hot burglaries were nothing to worry about because you've never worried about them (ok, mr. ostrich).
I showed that someone in the UK is more likely to experience a hot burglary than someone in the US is to experience gun violence.

You have two conclusions to draw from this:
If your statement is true, then gun violence in America is less than nothing to worry about.
-OR-
If your statement is false, then the problem of hot burglaries in the UK is not "no problem" and in fact a worse problem than gun violence in America.

idiot, Hitler took away Germans' guns AFTER they voted him in... lol

this is salient: do you think it would have been half as easy to round up an ARMED Jewish people as it was for Hitler and his SS?

lol

if you're not armed, you're a subject... subject to the whim of your government. If they go nuts, you're out of luck.

So do you just pretend the Jewish partisan groups never existed? And surprise surprise, they were mercilessly crushed very quickly.

Also, for all you people in favor of gun control:

If you were in Darfur and one of the members of the minority undergoing genocide, would you rather be armed or unarmed?

Firstly, dont swear. All swearing demonstrates is a lack of vocabulary

Secondly, the reason I care about it is I get rather fed up of being told by Americans on this board that "gun control is wrong" and that it is evil and akin to totalitarinism to control guns, when the UK is a free and functioning democracy with very strict gun laws.

Thirdly, isn't telling other people the extent of their rights and wrongs precisely what the Americans are doing all over the world today?
I will take your point and rephrase my statement(s):

Imposing Gun Control on the Free Citizens of the United States is wrong. That better?

I no more want the UN or anyone else telling me how to live my peacable life and own things peacably than you want USians telling you that Euro gun-control laws are a bunch of bollocks.

The flaw in that arguement is that thee specific purpose of guns is to kill people, unlike cars which are specificly designed to transport people.

Yeah, but the point that cars cause more death and facilitate more crimes still holds if that is the basis upon which you wish to outlaw or 'control' guns. It doesn't matter to a dead person whether the car was 'designed' to kill them, after all, any more than it matters to a dead person whether the gun was 'designed' for hunting animals.


Its fair to critise other governments, I am asking Americans to defend themselves

Heh funny, thats what I'm arguing for too. The ability of Americans to defend themselves.



This is exactly the kind of ignorence I am talking about. Many Americans will instantly assume that disarmerment is a prelude to some form of dictatorship. Its not.

Yeah, its just a COINCIDENCE that the nations of the 20th century which had the highest rates of government-inflicted deaths on their own population, all had strict gun laws. USSR, China, Germany.

Which is easier to control, repress, and murder?

a - Citizens with guns
b - Citizens without guns

This should be easy enough even for you. No one is saying that gun controls automatically lead to totalitarian dictatorships or imperialist kings. But they do make their jobs a lot easier.

So do you just pretend the Jewish partisan groups never existed? And surprise surprise, they were mercilessly crushed very quickly.
Except in Warsaw....

Also, for all you people in favor of gun control:

If you were in Darfur and one of the members of the minority undergoing genocide, would you rather be armed or unarmed?

A lot of the groups doing the killings were private militias. Armed with their own private firearms.

Except in Warsaw....

Warsaw was crushed all the same, just more brutally.

So do you just pretend the Jewish partisan groups never existed? And surprise surprise, they were mercilessly crushed very quickly.

though i doubt highly that 6 million were ever rebelling at the same time... now imagine if all 6 million(ish) who were killed possessed weapons... they'd have been damn hard to round up.

i wonder if Hitler would have been willing to fight simultaneously against the Jews, Russians AND Americans/British... he may have decided to leave the Jews alone.

So do you just pretend the Jewish partisan groups never existed? And surprise surprise, they were mercilessly crushed very quickly.

Well they didn't have a lot of guns, did they? Apparently guns were in short supply for them. Wonder why?

They didn't really have a culture of responsible, private gun possession and use either. Americans do. How many Americans you think would be riding cattle cars meekly to their death in that situation? I'd rather be "mercilessly crushed" fighting, then mercilessly butchered like a fucking cow.

Maybe it's different for you.

though i doubt highly that 6 million were ever rebelling at the same time... now imagine if all 6 million(ish) who were killed possessed weapons... they'd have been damn hard to round up.

i wonder if Hitler would have been willing to fight simultaneously against the Jews, Russians AND Americans/British... he may have decided to leave the Jews alone.

Do you think that 6 million civilians armed with hunting rifles would have lasted long unsupported without adequate supplies of ammunition or heavy weapons against the panzers, or the luftwaffe?

someone posted here (in another thread) that there are about 300 million guns in the US that are owned by private citizens

that's enough for every man, woman and child.

with such saturation, it would be impossible to put down a rebellion by the American people if one of our leaders ever lost it like Hitler or Stalin did.

no leader is going to nuke his own country. short of that, we Americans will never be subjugated so long as we have the right to bear arms.

and (not that this is likely...) woe to the foreign military that ever tries to take on America on our land... the Japanese might have tried; if they had (and entered on the West Coast) they would not have gone far.

Warsaw was crushed all the same, just more brutally.
So? At least they died fighting oppression/genocide. But I guess it's just better to bend over and take it....

Well they didn't have a lot of guns, did they? Apparently guns were in short supply for them. Wonder why?

They didn't really have a culture of responsible, private gun possession and use either. Americans do. How many Americans you think would be riding cattle cars meekly to their death in that situation? I'd rather be "mercilessly crushed" fighting, then mercilessly butchered like a fucking cow.

Maybe it's different for you.

If a dictator had control, he would have the military. How many people would really want to go out and die horribly for a lost cause? Sure, you all say you would, but when it comes down to it you probably wouldn't. Nobody wants to die.

So? At least they died fighting oppression/genocide. But I guess it's just better to bend over and take it....

I never said that. But the posession of arms doesn't stop dictators. Do you honestly think Hitler would have stopped and said:

'Hmmm...10 million people I want to eradicate with guns... better let them stay alive as an armed threat!"

Alright, I was gonna keep my mouth shut about this but...

The idea that crime will go down b/c guns are removed from the picture is simply false. What everyone must realize is the fact that Crimials already have illegal firearms in their possesion. They won't give these up, b/c they will be arrested on sight.

That being said, law abiding citizens will turn in their firearms. That leaves a law abiding citizen population with no way to defend itself from a crimial population armed to the teeth.

Not a strawman.
Nice to accuse me of a fallacy (incorrectly) when your assumption of "no problem" was a tremendous fallacy.

You implied that hot burglaries were nothing to worry about because you've never worried about them (ok, mr. ostrich).
I showed that someone in the UK is more likely to experience a hot burglary than someone in the US is to experience gun violence.

You have two conclusions to draw from this:
If your statement is true, then gun violence in America is less than nothing to worry about.
-OR-
If your statement is false, then the problem of hot burglaries in the UK is not "no problem" and in fact a worse problem than gun violence in America.


I hadn't previously claimed that US gun violence was something to worry about. The way it appeared to me, it seemed that you were trying to suggest that I should be worried about aggravated burglaries because they had a higher incidence than US gun crime. From that perspective it looked like a strawman.

If a dictator had control, he would have the military. How many people would really want to go out and die horribly for a lost cause? Sure, you all say you would, but when it comes down to it you probably wouldn't. Nobody wants to die.

Well. Given the choice between that and execution, you bet I would. At least in one I have a fighting chance (literally).

And how many military people in the USA are against private gun ownership? I don't know a single one.

Well. Given the choice between that and execution, you bet I would. At least in one I have a fighting chance (literally).

And how many military people in the USA are against private gun ownership? I don't know a single one.

There's the thing. You wouldn't. Dictatorships operate by keeping the fear of the state up. Chances are you'd be too piss scared along with the rest of your family/kneighbourhood to do anything.

Would you attack fully armed and equipped government troops with a pistol?

And on the Dictatorship issue, any government leader would think twice about going out to kill his own people when those people carry firearms. The military has the advantage of better equipment and training, but the armed Militia knows the territory, knows their weapons, and knows that they are going to most likely die. Ever fought a man with nothing to loose? Its the scarriest thing you'll ever have to face.

Then lets talk morality here. Said Dictator has to deal with the fact that he has just murdered his own people. The remaining population is now galvanized against the dictator as well as international backlash out the whazu.

Would anybody dare attack the mighty US?

There's the thing. You wouldn't. Dictatorships operate by keeping the fear of the state up. Chances are you'd be too piss scared along with the rest of your family/kneighbourhood to do anything.

YOU would be piss scared to do anything, that is why YOU are arguing against. Don't project your fright on me. You don't have a goddam clue.

Disarmed citizens are easier to kill. Period. I am not going to make myself easier to kill. You apparently are all for it.

YOU would be piss scared to do anything, that is why YOU are arguing against. Don't project your fright on me. You don't have a goddam clue.

Disarmed citizens are easier to kill. Period. I am not going to make myself easier to kill. You apparently are all for it.

Oooh, nice reverse. Are you sure you aren't Tony Blair's clone?

Honestly, would you risk your own life, and quite possibly the lives of your family just to strike out at the government?

I am not arguing against guns because I am scared of dying (heck, everyone is on some level). I am arguing against guns because I do believe that they do society no good.

There's the thing. You wouldn't. Dictatorships operate by keeping the fear of the state up. Chances are you'd be too piss scared along with the rest of your family/kneighbourhood to do anything.

Would you attack fully armed and equipped government troops with a pistol?

I mentioned something in another thread on this forum that was down the same lines...and I think you are missing out on an important factor, that being the oaths of US servicemembers. I'll quote my words in the other thread for your benefit:

We swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is an important distinction. A government that tries to "overthrow" the constitutional system of democracy in favor of a tyranny will find itself a domestic enemy of the constitution and will have one hell of a time trying to achieve its goals. Even if parts of the military go along with it in violation of our oaths, I can guaruntee you that the majority of US servicemembers hold their oath and their duty to uphold it quite dearly and in the event of such a horrific violation of American democracy would defend the constitution and the citizens of our country with quite the impassioned patriotism.

So while yes, your theory on dictatoriships and their troops may hold up in other countries, but it falls short here in the US.

So while yes, your theory on dictatoriships and their troops may hold up in other countries, but it falls short here in the US.


You assume that troops have no respect for their commanders. The commanders would most likely be involved, if a dictatorship wants to stay around it would keep the commanders sweet. Most troops must have some kind of respect for their commanders. Men follow leaders they respect.

And on the Dictatorship issue, any government leader would think twice about going out to kill his own people when those people carry firearms. The military has the advantage of better equipment and training, but the armed Militia knows the territory, knows their weapons, and knows that they are going to most likely die. Ever fought a man with nothing to loose? Its the scarriest thing you'll ever have to face.

Then lets talk morality here. Said Dictator has to deal with the fact that he has just murdered his own people. The remaining population is now galvanized against the dictator as well as international backlash out the whazu.


Sounds like a pretty incompetant dictator to me. Any dictator worth his salt would have a mighty propaganda machine villainising any uprising before it even got off the ground, accusing the rebels of acts of terrorism, using human shields, etc. Not to mention, people would soon get fed up with the local rebels, if the government flattened the place with an airstrike every time they show their faces. Add to that, Armed militias would be full of government double agents, and they probably would end up doing more harm than good.

In general, I don't think I'm really opposed to the idea of privately owned guns. I just wish people would admit that they want guns because they're cool, instead of coming up with all this 'armed resistance' bullshit.

Gun do a service to society.

They provide a health and relaxing sport. They can bring home food. They also protect a family from home invasion.

They also do a service to the environment. My argument will prolly get blown out of proportion, but hunting provides a certain service to the environment.

In Texas, white-tailed Deer are a cash crop. In some instances they are so numerous that alot are dying from starvation. By letting the population hunt them (all this is heavily regulated btw) We can preserve the species, and make sure to keep the population in check to make sure their aren't autoaccidents for example involving deer (that has been know to kill drivers and passengers).

What about international basklash when the rest of the world realizes what that dictator is doing to his own people?

You assume that troops have no respect for their commanders. The commanders would most likely be involved, if a dictatorship wants to stay around it would keep the commanders sweet. Most troops must have some kind of respect for their commanders. Men follow leaders they respect.

You assume that all of the commanders are part of it. Speaking on the behalf of myself and my peers who are cadets training to be officers, I can tell you that the vast majority of officers in the US military would not go along with it. Respect for commanders or not, there's another distinction to be made.

US officers are endowed with enormous power...notably the authority to not follow orders from superiors. Granted, under normal circumstances, an officer that chooses to not follow a direction from above risks his career and liberty in the event his course of action proves faulty. However, in the extraordinary circumstances we are discussing...sure, a division commander can order his troops to overthrow the government, but he'd have a rough time with his brigade commanders following those orders. Even if the JCS (joint chiefs of staff) decided to pull a stunt like this...they are specifically removed from the direct chain of command for this purpose. Yes the President is the CIC, but once again, the oath is to the constitution, not a commander. I can tell you for a fact that the officers of the US military recognize the distinction.

Oooh, nice reverse. Are you sure you aren't Tony Blair's clone?


Frankly your argument was ad hominem anyway. I felt throwing it back in your face was the least I can do to repay your thought and concern.


Honestly, would you risk your own life, and quite possibly the lives of your family just to strike out at the government?

Strawman. No one is saying guns are simply a good way to "strike out at the government." They are, however, an effective answer to the middle of the night visit from a few soldiers. You'd like to paint Krystallnacht as tanks and planes versus minorities, but it wasn't like that at all - wouldn't have even worked, even for Hitler, to bomb his own country.


I am not arguing against guns because I am scared of dying (heck, everyone is on some level). I am arguing against guns because I do believe that they do society no good.

No, you've been arguing against guns because you think having one doesn't benefit your self-defense at all. Then you've been arguing that it does theoretically but that you (me) would be too scared to defend oneself.

But whether guns do "good" for "society" is of little concern to me personally, but having a gun to defend my family and my self for those special situations (yes, they DO happen!) where having and knowing how to use a gun means the difference between a good, bad and worse outcome.

What about international basklash when the rest of the world realizes what that dictator is doing to his own people?

This dictator has the US military at his disposal. From what I hear from the Americans here as long as he has that he can do whatever the hell he wants :)

I think that the U.S could never get rid of its guns becuase they are too ingrained within the culture. Its like trying to ban alcohol in Britain, it just wouldnt work.

One other thing, can people stop saying that Britian has a higher amount of burglary nd violent becuase we aren't allowed guns, becuase it doesnt make sense. Since we have had tight gun control laws for a very long time and the increase in burglaries and violent crimes only started about 25 years ago.

I think that the U.S could never get rid of its guns becuase they are too ingrained within the culture. Its like trying to ban alcohol in Britain, it just wouldnt work.

One other thing, can people stop saying that Britian has a higher amount of burglary nd violent becuase we aren't allowed guns, becuase it doesnt make sense. Since we have had tight gun control laws for a very long time and the increase in burglaries and violent crimes only started about 25 years ago.

He's right. Basically all the claims that we have high burglary rates because we don't have guns amount to a post hoc fallacy.

What about international basklash when the rest of the world realizes what that dictator is doing to his own people?

About the most international backlash the US is going to get, is a polite resolution in the UN requesting that the Americans be a bit nicer to each other.

I think that the U.S could never get rid of its guns becuase they are too ingrained within the culture. Its like trying to ban alcohol in Britain, it just wouldnt work.

One other thing, can people stop saying that Britian has a higher amount of burglary nd violent becuase we aren't allowed guns, becuase it doesnt make sense. Since we have had tight gun control laws for a very long time and the increase in burglaries and violent crimes only started about 25 years ago.

it sort of makes sense:

were britons armed, those who would be robbed could stop the robbery from happening at least in some instances.

a robber/burglar sees that gun and, whether or not HE is armed, all of a sudden a regluar robbery turns into a dangerous proposition. If he's lucky, the gun-owner will not shoot him on sight.

This dictator has the US military at his disposal. From what I hear from the Americans here as long as he has that he can do whatever the hell he wants :)

Despite your political leanings, it would be inappropriate to characterize Bush as a dictator. I realize you and many many others do not agree with or like him, and many vehemently so, but Bush was democratically elected. You can argue semantics and complain about the electoral college as to his first election, and that may indeed be a holdover from the early days that should be done away with, but the process was democratic. His second election was unquestionably decisive, and as such he does not fit the definition of a tyrant.

Secondly, yeah he has the US military at his disposal, he's the Commander in Chief. And since he has not violated his constitutional rights in utilizing it, he's well within the boundaries of his powers.

Despite your political leanings, it would be inappropriate to characterize Bush as a dictator.

I thought we were talking about a hypothetical dictator here.

idiot, Hitler took away Germans' guns AFTER they voted him in... lol

this is salient: do you think it would have been half as easy to round up an ARMED Jewish people as it was for Hitler and his SS?

lol

if you're not armed, you're a subject... subject to the whim of your government. If they go nuts, you're out of luck.
my god... that finally hit the nail on the head for me... you americans are just paranoid against your own government!
why? :confused:


*considers starting a thread about this*

Firstly, dont swear. All swearing demonstrates is a lack of vocabulary.
You sound like my US history teacher. Your argument is specious at best. If he were to have dropped it into every sentence in his post or twice in the same sentence you could possibly make a case but as it is the word describes succinctly his feelings on the subject. Now, if he wanted to expound on the matter in other ways he probably could have, but it would have made him look like a pompous ass.

I thought we were talking about a hypothetical dictator here.

You are...however, read the context of Ankhmet's post and you will notice that it's quite pointed.

I'd much rather see a woman shoot the guy attempting to rape her than have her endure a rape for want of a weapon.
You've got to remember DC, we're discussing matters with people who think that a woman who was raped and then strangled with her own underwear is somehow morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Do you think that 6 million civilians armed with hunting rifles would have lasted long unsupported without adequate supplies of ammunition or heavy weapons against the panzers, or the luftwaffe?

Funny how insurgents in other nations such as Iraq and Israel seem to have no problem keeping up a ruckus against a superior military power. And I doubt it'd only be hunting rifles they'd get their hands on. You kill soldiers, you take their weapons. And so forth.

The simple fact is that the 2nd Amendment line about governments is poo. There is no way in hell that any armed citizenry could stand up against the US military.

You mean like the insurgents in iraq? :rolleyes:

You can't have it both ways.

If a dictator had control, he would have the military. How many people would really want to go out and die horribly for a lost cause? Sure, you all say you would, but when it comes down to it you probably wouldn't. Nobody wants to die.
You've obviously never heard the phrase "It's me and you against the world. So when do we attack?"

FOR FUCK SAKE YOU THICK SHIT AMERICANS

Hitler didn't subjicate SHIT. They VOTED HIM IN. They LOVED HIM.

NO dictators get into power without either popular support, or military support, and guns DON'T DO SHIT in the face of either of those

That might have been true in Germany, but what about Austria, or Czechoslovakia?

Godwin's law here, folks, someone brought up the Nazis, now the thread's gone to crap.

Fact: Cars kill more people than privately-held guns do. It's a fact. It's also a fact that the majority of violent deaths involve alcohol, not guns.

This is the USA I'm talking about here. You're dealing with an issue of culture differences-in America, Risk is accepted in a variety of places that it is not elsewhere. It was, after all, an American who stated that "Those who surrender Liberties for temporary safety will have neither Liberty, nor Safety."
Most of the English Gun-Control started with the successes of the Irish uprising in 1916 (an uprising that failed, but spawned a low-level guerilla war on the Emerald Isle). Like early American attempts at Gun-Control, the main focus was to suppress a minority. (In Alabama it was black people, in the U.K. it was Irish people-this was before Ireland was emancipated, you understand.)

The comparisons with U.S. foreign policies being made (EP) ignore three hundered years of British Imperial doctrine (where the Crown did much the same thing, only more directly). This really isn't about one's foreign policy, it's a domestic issue-in the U.K. it's considered to be a non-problem to have gun-control laws on the books. In the U.S. it would be a major headache and require significant monies to even get the guns the government knows about (Transferred via form 4473), much less the ones that it doesn't.
Ammunition control is a dodgy one too-enough Yanks know how to make powder, primer, and projectile-all they need industries for, is casings (and a metal detector in the right areas can yeild big-time quantities of the last.)

When you remove suicides, shootings involving Police vs. Criminals, and Criminals vs. Criminals (Professional crooks, now) shooting deaths aren't even competitive with motor scooter accidents, even in the U.S.

If you compare unvetted shootings (that is, all shootings, legitimate and otherwise) with Drunk Driving fatalities, DWI, OWI (operating heavy equipment while intoxicated), and people being beaten to death by drunk people, Alcohol kills significant multiples more people than firearms do. IF you separate firearms-while-drunk into the booze column, the difference is even wider.

Of course, Prohibition didn't work all too well...

Alcohol has no purpose, except to impair the judgement of people and make them stupid, violent, and dangerous, yet we permit it to be purchased, do we not?
It's a much simpler trick to use firearms responsibly, than to use booze. In the U.S., it is presumed under the law that you are a responsible adult until you prove otherwise. Responsible Adults are not a danger when armed. Irresponsible people are dangerous even without weapons.

It's a difference of mindset-in England, you have a Nanny named Government, who takes care of all those decisions for you. In the U.S., we do not. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes a bad thing-but the acceptance of risk is fundamental to Liberty, as is the acceptance of Responsibility.

What about international basklash when the rest of the world realizes what that dictator is doing to his own people?
Um... Yeah. You mean the UN might mightily wave various bits of paper at him?

Um... Yeah. You mean the UN might mightily wave various bits of paper at him?

lol, no kidding! "DISARM NOW, OR THE UN WILL CRACK DOWN WITH $5 million less in aid packages!"

--------------------

Originally Posted by Rus024
The simple fact is that the 2nd Amendment line about governments is poo. There is no way in hell that any armed citizenry could stand up against the US military.

the US military could not subdue 300 million armed men, women and children. No way in hell. Not without nukes... and we're not going to nuke ourselves!

And consider this: almost every one of those soldiers/marines/sailors/pilots has family who ARE among those American citizens.... what % of the US military would fight on the side of the people?

the US military could not subdue 300 million armed men, women and children. No way in hell. Not without nukes... and we're not going to nuke ourselves!

It's highly unlikely the entire population, children included, is going to rise up as one. Once you remove the spineless cowards, pacifists, lazy and apathetic people, people who support the government (and that in itself will be a large faction, regardless of how insane the government is), and complete lamers who would just be a liability, the disorganised rabble you're left with isn't going to be up to tackling the world's most powerful military, especially if the commanders aren't too bothered about collateral damage and comitting atrocities.

And consider this: almost every one of those soldiers/marines/sailors/pilots has family who ARE among those American citizens.... what % of the US military would fight on the side of the people?

What does that have to do with an armed population? If the US military breaks up and fights against the oppressive government, then surely the population doesn't need to be armed for that purpose.

I am sure most of what I am going to say here has already been said, but this is how I see the issue.

1. Guns kill less than many other things in the United States (cars, achohol...) So should we outlaw achohol/cars because it kills people? Yes, I know that those two things are not MADE to kill people, but the fact is they do.

2. I myself own guns and knives. If guns were outlawed, I might give up my gun. However, if knives were outlawed, I would not give that up, I have too many practical applications, and truthfully there are some areas of town that I would not walk without at least a knife.

3. You CANNOT compare gun law / murder rates of different countries. The cultures are too different. In Switzerland gun ownership is mandatory for all men 18-42 I think it is. They have the lowest crime rate in the world. But I don't know if this would work for every country in the world.

4. Someone out there thought it was more moral for a woman to be raped than the rapist be killed... that is just sick. There are things in this world worse than death. I can't remember the exact number, and I can't seem to find my report... but something like millions of attempted rapes a year are stopped because the woman carried a handgun.

5. I speak for myself and everyone that I know that owns a gun. I would die protecting my friends and family. I would rather die fighting, than being executed. This does not matter if the enemy was another country or my own government. Some said that the Americans are paranoid that thier own government is going to get them. I would say to a degree, yes. Look at history, how many times has a bad leader done horrible things to thier country and other countries? Even in the US there have been leaders that have made some bad decisions. I am glad that I have the right to carry a weapon, and I will defend that right until my death.

These are mostly my personal observations.. please feel free to critique. :)

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime. It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK. Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?

really silly arguement, you should replace the UK with canada.

Same amount of guns in canada VS the USA, more gun control much less gun play etc etc.

BUt as I have stated before, yanks are gun happy and shoot more, its a culture thing, not a gun control thing...

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime. It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK. Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?

The same way the anti gun lobby explains Switzerland and Israel.

It isnt really relevant.

Exactly. Any such attempt at power grabbing would require military support.

I'd love to see how the average gun owner does against a squadron of marines or how the local NRA group does against a SEAL team.

The simple fact is that the 2nd Amendment line about governments is poo. There is no way in hell that any armed citizenry could stand up against the US military.

I would like to know what a SEAL team is going to do against a potentially hostile population when

1)they dont know who is hostile and who is not
2) they arent allowed to wipe out/secure everybody
3)they are outnumbered a few thousand to 1.

Do you really think that a civil uprising would entail civilians using military tactics against the military? are you that dense? One on one the military would wipe the floor with a civilian. But it isnt 1 on 1, and the idea is to strike before the military personal dont even know there is conflict going on.

Why do you think that the Iraq insurgency is able to do as much damage as it is? Do you think they are fighting straight up fight? And there are only a few thousand of them. There are millions of US gun owners, a military might be able to destroy a US city, but they will never take one.

I would like to know what a SEAL team is going to do against a potentially hostile population when

1)they dont know who is hostile and who is not
2) they arent allowed to wipe out/secure everybody
3)they are outnumbered a few thousand to 1.


Since practically every occupying force in history has had to endure these conditions, presumably there is a strategy for dealing with it.

As propaganda could likely keep most civilians if not brainwashed, then at least confused enough, that they wouldn't be willing to risk a rebellion until it was too late, I think it's probable that martial law would be firmly established before any large scale uprising could take place. After that, the government would just continue to restrict freedom and increase military and police numbers, until the capacity for armed resistance is negligible. And, there are always plenty enough people willing to sell out and enforce the whims of a tyrant, in exchange for priveliges.

Since practically every occupying force in history has had to endure these conditions, presumably there is a strategy for dealing with it.

As propaganda could likely keep most civilians if not brainwashed, then at least confused enough, that they wouldn't be willing to risk a rebellion until it was too late, I think it's probable that martial law would be firmly established before any large scale uprising could take place. After that, the government would just continue to restrict freedom and increase military and police numbers, until the capacity for armed resistance is negligible. And, there are always plenty enough people willing to sell out and enforce the whims of a tyrant, in exchange for priveliges.

It is why occupation is so difficult. Thats the point. The military is dwarfed by the civilian population. If the civilian population is agitated enough and they have some minimal means of resistance(basic firearms will do), the military is in big trouble. This has been true throughout history. Moreso now that active militaries are so small relative to the population.

If the civilian population is agitated enough and they have some minimal means of resistance(basic firearms will do), the military is in big trouble.

It seems likely that any kind of move toward dictatorship in the USA would be preluded by massive propaganda campaigns, and increases in military spending. By the time enough people worked out what was going on, it would be too late. I think most people would be unwilling to gamble their security and livelihood, and the safety of their families, unless they were absolutely sure what was going on, and so long as only small groups are resisting, the government can demonise them and turn the rest of the population against them. It is different to an uprising against a foreign occupier, as in Iraq or the American Revolution, as a government can manipulate its own people through the media far more easily than it can a foreign subject state.

It seems likely that any kind of move toward dictatorship in the USA would be preluded by massive propaganda campaigns, and increases in military spending. By the time enough people worked out what was going on, it would be too late. I think most people would be unwilling to gamble their security and livelihood, and the safety of their families, unless they were absolutely sure what was going on, and so long as only small groups are resisting, the government can demonise them and turn the rest of the population against them. It is different to an uprising against a foreign occupier, as in Iraq or the American Revolution, as a government can manipulate its own people through the media far more easily than it can a foreign subject state.

Interesting point, and much of what you say is true but I should mention that the American Revolution was more of a civil war between British subjects than an international conflict.

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime. It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK. Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?

It really doesnt matter if you have guns either way. When I lived in the UK I saw alot of crime. Mainly using other implements than guns. Criminals will be criminals. On the other hand there is no rationalisation for banning guns either in my opinion. Seeing how the US was born from a barrel of a gun. I say keep the gun laws. Its part of the Constitution and culture/history of the US.

Interesting point, and much of what you say is true but I should mention that the American Revolution was more of a civil war between British subjects than an international conflict.

Not everyone in America at time of revolution was British. Alot of mainland Europeans were here. Remember that there was alot of Spanish/French/German/Dutch and Scandanavians here too. Along with the Native American population.

To anyone who says armed citizens cannot stop a military:

Please look up the Vietnam war, US involvement(1963-1972). Look up the Soviet-afghan war. Look at the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

These are three examples of incredibly powerful militaries(Iranian military under the shah was the fifth most powerful in the world in '75), losing to armed civilians with minor military help. In Vietnam, it was jungle guerilla warfare. Afghanistan, mountain. Iran, desert(harder to say this tho, becaues the Iranian people revolted against a long oppresive government, they werent fighting against...you get my point). The Us? Urban. I would love to see the us try to stop millions of armed civilians, who can simply stash their weapons and join the crowds of american citizens. Its even worse than in vietnam, for example, because it is your own people you are shooting, not foreigners. Its much more damaging psychologically to a soldier to kill his countrymen, especially when he knows they might be civilians.

Um... Yeah. You mean the UN might mightily wave various bits of paper at him?

clearly you have never been on the receiving end of a UN papercut when Kofi "I am a corrupt spineless bitch" Annan was feeling like flexing his man muscle.

As a military man and a gun owner, I believe that The UK is very fortunate. The goverment at this time is not overly corrupt enough where guns are needed by the citizen. However, look at China for example. Sure, violent crime is low there too, but that is more out of fear of insanly hardcore laws. What if the chinese people wanted to stop the communist party? What would be their options? hope to outlast the bullets thrown at them by the soldiers AK-47?

I'd try to get a gun whether or not gun ownership is legal where I'm living. Currently that is the US so it isn't a problem.

I'd try to get a gun whether or not gun ownership is legal where I'm living. Currently that is the US so it isn't a problem.

Yes, the US* is a good country at the moment to own guns.

*Offer not available in the States of California, New Jersey, New York, as well as Washington, and certain other cities.

As an American who owns several firearms, of quite a variety (shotguns, rifles, and pistols) I will agree that there are and have been some unfortunate people and incidents where people with guns have hurt and killed others. But yesterday, there was 90million gun owners in this country who didnt commit a gun related crime. I know it has been said before and will again. That guns dont kill people, people kill people. As an object alone, a gun has never hurt anyone. It takes a human, to load, aim and fire the gun. Speaking for myself, I not only hunt but also enjoy a day spent at the shooting range. I travel overseas fairly often and have this debate, in British Commonwealth countries(Australia, Canada, UK) there is lots of misinformation and ignorance. Because I have got a closet full to guns, which I think of more than tools and weapons. Doesnt mean I have a bloodlust to commit unspeakable acts. The US is doing fine with our laws. We could do without a few of our radicals on this issue. But by far the quiet majority of gun owners are regular citizens who enjoy shooting for recreation.

Yeah, its just a COINCIDENCE that the nations of the 20th century which had the highest rates of government-inflicted deaths on their own population, all had strict gun laws. USSR, China, Germany.

Which is easier to control, repress, and murder?

a - Citizens with guns
b - Citizens without guns

This should be easy enough even for you. No one is saying that gun controls automatically lead to totalitarian dictatorships or imperialist kings. But they do make their jobs a lot easier.

I cannot believe you seriously think that gun control is precursor to dictatorship. I was dealing with more ignorence here than I thought.

Gun control is closer to dictatorship than one would think. A population that cannot stand up for itself is doomed to be instructed by others.

I may be wrong, but with my weapons if I feel things get too out of hand, I have the limited ability to defend myself and where I live and what I believe. Even if I can't beat my own nation's army I know I can give them a good what-for.

my god... that finally hit the nail on the head for me... you americans are just paranoid against your own government!
why? :confused:


*considers starting a thread about this*

Hmmm... let's see...


No. We don't trust the government. (at least, a lot of us don't-those who've studied something other than Revisionist crap don't.)
Government is like this big, mean, junkyard dog. It's something you need to have (for obvious reasons), but it's a bad idea to let it off its chain for any length of time.
Every small check against its power keeps it the Servant rather than the Master of the people.
Given that we're talking about a 'servant' that serves badly at the default setting, limiting expansions of power at this stage is probably the best we can do on the practical level.

I'm not American, I'm Canadian, and I'm not anti guns. I own one of my own, and my father owns 4 of them, and I wouldn't give them up for anything. Although our laws are a bit more stricked then in the U.S.A. we still allow guns, and our gun murder rate is not that high, actually our suicide rate from guns is higher then the murder rate from guns. Although, we aren't allowed to walk around town with handguns and we aren't allowed to even own automatic weapons, but we can still own rifles and shotguns.

You know, there's no way the average rape victim can physically overpower her assailant. Let's make sure she doesn't have anything to even the odds - since she'll get raped anyway, right? [/appeal to emotion]


The rape rates in the UK are lower than the US.

[In 2003 there were ~200000 rapes recorded in the US versus 14000 in the UK, with populations of 296m and 60m respectively]

Turns out that being armed does nothing to reduce rape. Hardly surprising given that the vast majority of rapes are by people the victim knows.

Yeah, its just a COINCIDENCE that the nations of the 20th century which had the highest rates of government-inflicted deaths on their own population, all had strict gun laws. USSR, China, Germany.



Of the *bottom* 20 in that table, how many of *their* governments have strict gun control laws?

To anyone who says armed citizens cannot stop a military:

Please look up the Vietnam war, US involvement(1963-1972). Look up the Soviet-afghan war. Look at the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

These are three examples of incredibly powerful militaries(Iranian military under the shah was the fifth most powerful in the world in '75), losing to armed civilians with minor military help.


As far as I can see, the Iranian Revolution wasn't an uprising by armed civilians. The mass protests were mostly peaceful. The critical factors were a general strike, which brought the economy to a halt, and the fragmentation of the army when soldiers refused to fire on civilians, and changed sides. Nothing was achieved by armed civilians.

YOU would be piss scared to do anything, that is why YOU are arguing against. Don't project your fright on me. You don't have a goddam clue.

Disarmed citizens are easier to kill. Period. I am not going to make myself easier to kill. You apparently are all for it.

Eh, *you* are the one sitting their afraid that your government is going to come and kill you. How paranoid is that?

You mean like the insurgents in iraq? :rolleyes:

You can't have it both ways.

That is either an armed citizenry *or* a terrorist organization. You can't have it both ways - either the insurgents are paramilitaries or they are not. Which is it? If it *is* an armed citizenry, then your argument kills itself [they are defending their homeland against a foreign aggressor].

Of course, Prohibition didn't work all too well...

Alcohol has no purpose, except to impair the judgement of people and make them stupid, violent, and dangerous, yet we permit it to be purchased, do we not?
It's a much simpler trick to use firearms responsibly, than to use booze. In the U.S., it is presumed under the law that you are a responsible adult until you prove otherwise. Responsible Adults are not a danger when armed. Irresponsible people are dangerous even without weapons.



Several questions:

1. How many shootings occur in which the shootee is not injured?
2. How many units of alcohol are consumed without *any* detriment to society?
3. How many passenger-miles pass without any fatalities in cars?


The answers:
1. None.
2. The overwhelming majority.
3. The overwhelming majority.

If you'd look at my other posts I said that we as a nation accept the consequences of gun ownership in exchange for the right to own guns. It's a trade off we're willing to make.

That is such a selfish thing to do.

Let the yanks play cowboys&indians and be happy it isn't like this where you live...

THis is why it wont work in US.

The US' media scares them and blows things way out of proportion like the Cuban boy and the Schiavo woman.

The UK is just there.

Let the yanks play cowboys&indians and be happy it isn't like this where you live...

Actually, it's more likely they'll be playing policeman and black gang members.

Several questions:

1. How many shootings occur in which the shootee is not injured?
2. How many units of alcohol are consumed without *any* detriment to society?
3. How many passenger-miles pass without any fatalities in cars?


The answers:
1. None.
2. The overwhelming majority.
3. The overwhelming majority.

1. I don't know, not none.

1. I don't know, not none.

I think it was the "shooting" where the guy is hit by a bullet. Unless it was a very strange shooting, a situation where someone is hit by a bullet will definitely be an injury.
Internet, home of the poor explanation since 1802. :D

The rape rates in the UK are lower than the US.

[In 2003 there were ~200000 rapes recorded in the US versus 14000 in the UK, with populations of 296m and 60m respectively]

Turns out that being armed does nothing to reduce rape. Hardly surprising given that the vast majority of rapes are by people the victim knows.

Um I have a problem with that, you are comparing two different sized populations.

1. I don't know, not none.

Eh?

You do know - otherwise you are saying that if I shoot you, you might not be injured.

I think it was the "shooting" where the guy is hit by a bullet. Unless it was a very strange shooting, a situation where someone is hit by a bullet will definitely be an injury.
Internet, home of the poor explanation since 1802. :D

Lests see how about if it grazes or keflar/zylon armor.

Um I have a problem with that, you are comparing two different sized populations.

Nope - work out the proportionate comparison and the US is still higher

200,000 for a population of 296,000,000 is proportionately greater than 14,000 for a population of 60,000,000 - by rough and ready calculation the US population is ~5 times the size of the UK, yet the number of rapes is far more than 5 times the number in the UK.

Eh?

You do know - otherwise you are saying that if I shoot you, you might not be injured.

Define injured. If you are talking being grazed, or worse then if you sdoot me but it just takes off a hair i still was shot but not injured

Actually, it's more likely they'll be playing policeman and black gang members.

Or schoolchildren & teachers...

Nope - work out the proportionate comparison and the US is still higher

200,000 for a population of 296,000,000 is proportionately greater than 14,000 for a population of 60,000,000 - by rough and ready calculation the US population is ~5 times the size of the UK, yet the number of rapes is far more than 5 times the number in the UK.

Um. Lets see

296million/200,000=1480
60million/14,000=4285.714286

GB's Ratio is roughly thrice as high.

Whilst I am firmly against legal gun ownership (proliferation of weapons has never been seen as a good idea - check out the US foreign policy on other countries owning the right to bear weapons of 'state security' - WMD), I am quite taken by the idea of arming the population to defend against the tyrannical government...

Not saying that we need this in the UK, but the coporate fascism that seems to be taking over the federal US government might justify the need for civilian militias. Free speech providing you don't promote dissent/treason/terrorism. Just a shame the NRA is so closely tied to the fundamnetalist organisations in the US that infringe on civil liberty - neo-cons. :headbang:

Um. Lets see

296million/200,000=1480
60million/14,000=4285.714286

GB's Ratio is roughly thrice as high.

You're using dodgy maths...

in the US 200,000 rapes per 296 million citizens
in the UK 14,000 rapes per 60 million citizens

these are equivalent to

1 in 1480 for the US and 1 in 4286 for the UK, so the US rate is actually around 3 times the rate in the UK

You're using dodgy maths...
Yeah, his answers didn't come out as fractions like they were supposed to.

these are equivalent to

1 in 1480 for the US and 1 in 4286 for the UK, so the US rate is actually around 3 times the rate in the UK


Or, 0.23 per 1000 population in the UK, and 0.67 per 1000 population in the US.

Allowing to civilians to carry guns around will, in the short term reduce crime. In the long term you end up in a situation where guns are entrenched - all the criminals have them, and they are relied on routinely by civilians and law enforcement.

The US is in a difficult position. The only way to really reduce gun crime is to destroy the culture of guns, which is common both to ordinary people and to criminals, and to do that you would probably need to ban guns because you would probably need to reduce their use in order to remove the gun culture. But it's politically impossible because Americans value guns not only for practical reasons but also for political ones, and also because the immediate effect of a gun ban would be to produce a rise in crime as criminal retained their weapons and civilians lost theirs.

Perhaps the way through is to keep allowing people to hold guns, but to get the message through to them that guns are horrible things that have no place at the heart of any modern culture. A lot of people see them as symbols of power, whether offensive or defensive, and that makes them appealing. While that continues America will never be free of its astronomical gun crime rates.

Allowing to civilians to carry guns around will, in the short term reduce crime. In the long term you end up in a situation where guns are entrenched - all the criminals have them, and they are relied on routinely by civilians and law enforcement.

The US is in a difficult position. The only way to really reduce gun crime is to destroy the culture of guns, which is common both to ordinary people and to criminals, and to do that you would probably need to ban guns because you would probably need to reduce their use in order to remove the gun culture. But it's politically impossible because Americans value guns not only for practical reasons but also for political ones, and also because the immediate effect of a gun ban would be to produce a rise in crime as criminal retained their weapons and civilians lost theirs.

Perhaps the way through is to keep allowing people to hold guns, but to get the message through to them that guns are horrible things that have no place at the heart of any modern culture. A lot of people see them as symbols of power, whether offensive or defensive, and that makes them appealing. While that continues America will never be free of its astronomical gun crime rates.


OR, you could actually look at what causes the crime in the first place and do something about that.

Exactly. Any such attempt at power grabbing would require military support.

I'd love to see how the average gun owner does against a squadron of marines or how the local NRA group does against a SEAL team.

The simple fact is that the 2nd Amendment line about governments is poo. There is no way in hell that any armed citizenry could stand up against the US military.

Unless the military doesn't know who the enemy really is. We're sword to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States, and if that constitution is perverted and corrupted, we are STILL sworn to defend it. We're not this omniscient collective unit trained to know who the enemy is.... Did Japan expect to be nuked before attacking Pearl Harbor? Probably not. Why? Because we're not psychic.

OR, you could actually look at what causes the crime in the first place and do something about that.

well DUHH!!
Instead of trying to stop law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, why don't they work on trying to figure out what causes the people to revert to crime and stop that? Hey, if there were no criminals, I wouldn't need to worry about protecting myself. But this is the real world, and in this world there are bad guys and there are good guys, and until we can figure out a way to fix the causes of crimes, I guess I'll have to protect myself and my family from becoming another statistic. Gee, how many times have you heard of a home invasion turn bloody when the criminal not only robs the place, but then kills the homeowner for no apparent reason? They go free to commit another crime and by the time they are finally caught they have a rap sheet more than a MILE long! some of them have on their sheet attempted robbery, wanted for murder, attempted murder, home invasions, battery, assault, and the list goes on. Hell, they should be stopped on the first offense, not the 101st offense! If someone ever steps foot in my house illeagly, the only way out is in a body bag or on the stretcher if they are lucky. Good riddence to bad trash. And that is a promise.

OR, you could actually look at what causes the crime in the first place and do something about that.

Quite. Gun culture is the cause of crime. Let's do something about that.


Gee, how many times have you heard of a home invasion turn bloody when the criminal not only robs the place, but then kills the homeowner for no apparent reason? They go free to commit another crime and by the time they are finally caught they have a rap sheet more than a MILE long!

I've never heard of that happening in Britain. There was one case last year where a psycho killed two women then went to another house and killed an elderly couple, which is fairly close.

So maybe once.

Whilst I am firmly against legal gun ownership (proliferation of weapons has never been seen as a good idea - check out the US foreign policy on other countries owning the right to bear weapons of 'state security' - WMD), I am quite taken by the idea of arming the population to defend against the tyrannical government...

Not saying that we need this in the UK, but the coporate fascism that seems to be taking over the federal US government might justify the need for civilian militias. Free speech providing you don't promote dissent/treason/terrorism. Just a shame the NRA is so closely tied to the fundamnetalist organisations in the US that infringe on civil liberty - neo-cons. :headbang:

oh boy, civil liberty being infringed by the NRA? Now you are just being stupid. Banning guns is infringing on MY civil liberty.

Gun culture is the cause of crime.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Quite. Gun culture is the cause of crime. Let's do something about that.




I've never heard of that happening in Britain. There was one case last year where a psycho killed two women then went to another house and killed an elderly couple, which is fairly close.

So maybe once.


Well, thats britain, not the US. I live in Chicago and this happens quite often, and most of the time its not done by some psycho, but by stupid street hoodlums who need to steal money from an elderly person to support their drug problem. And most of the time they are caused by gangbangers without guns. The victim is either beaten to death or stabbed to death or strangled to death. Shooting someone is much too noisy in a residential area.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And yet it matches. Switzerland - lots of guns, no gun culture, little crime. US - lots of guns, gun culture, massive amounts of crime.

Making lame laughing noises never won any arguments. I propose that you put forard your explanation of why the US has a much higher firearm homicide rate than other Western countries. I have put forward mine and justified it. So far, you have just made strange noises.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

allow me to add to this....
BAAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
WAAAHHHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(gasp) WOOOHOOHAHAHAAAA!!!
Man, that has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Gun culture is the cause of crime. So I suppose there was absolutely no crime whatsoever before guns were invented, right? No killing, no theft, no vandalism, no wars, no nothing before guns, right? Gee, I wonder if Westmorlandia ever opened up a history book.

And yet it matches. Switzerland - lots of guns, no gun culture, little crime. US - lots of guns, gun culture, massive amounts of crime.

Making lame laughing noises never won any arguments. I propose that you put forard your explanation of why the US has a much higher firearm homicide rate than other Western countries. I have put forward mine and justified it. So far, you have just made strange noises.

Switzerland, no gun culture? Are you that ignorant? They have nationally sponsored youth shooting competitions that attract thousands of people.

Drugs, illegal immigration, poverty, gangs, etc.

Your justification? Guns cause crime.

So there was no crime before firearms?

allow me to add to this....
BAAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
WAAAHHHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(gasp) WOOOHOOHAHAHAAAA!!!
Man, that has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Gun culture is the cause of crime. So I suppose there was absolutely no crime whatsoever before guns were invented, right? No killing, no theft, no vandalism, no wars, no nothing before guns, right? Gee, I wonder if Westmorlandia ever opened up a history book.

It's almost as good as the time I was told that crime in the UK and Australia was America's fault.

I take it none of you have any experience of, say, logic? No? Well, I'll try to explain even so.

The fact that gun culture causes crime does not mean that it is the only cause of crime. All that I am saying is that in a culture where guns are revered and seen as symbols of power you will see higher gun crime rates. Therefore such a gun culture is a cause of crime.

And I'm using the term 'gun culture' not to mean a culture where guns are used, but specifically to refer to one where they are fetishised and seen as symbols of power.


And I'm still waiting for that alternative explanation as to why the US has such high gun crime rates.

I take it none of you have any experience of, say, logic? No? Well, I'll try to explain even so.

The fact that gun culture causes crime does not mean that it is the only cause of crime. All that I am saying is that in a culture where guns are revered and seen as symbols of power you will see higher gun crime rates. Therefore such a gun culture is a cause of crime.

And I'm using the term 'gun culture' not to mean a culture where guns are used, but specifically to refer to one where they are fetishised and seen as symbols of power.


And I'm still waiting for that alternative explanation as to why the US has such high gun crime rates.

OK, so what you're saying is you're using lots of big words and defining things as you see fit to make yourself sound smart and bias the discussion so there can be no answers but yours. Gotcha.

I've already provided the explanation, you just either missed it or chose to ignore it.

I cannot believe you seriously think that gun control is precursor to dictatorship. I was dealing with more ignorence here than I thought.

...

I notice you didn't answer the question. Is it because you can agree that citizens without guns are easier to control, and can't admit when you're wrong?

This whole "you're ignorant" argument you and everyone else loves to use is getting really, really tiring. You're pretty fucking ignorant yourself but you don't see me using that as the sole basis of my argument.

The rape rates in the UK are lower than the US.

[In 2003 there were ~200000 rapes recorded in the US versus 14000 in the UK, with populations of 296m and 60m respectively]

Turns out that being armed does nothing to reduce rape. Hardly surprising given that the vast majority of rapes are by people the victim knows.

...

I'd like you to rethink your position. You seem to think a lower amount of gun control and a higher rate of rape implies a necessary causal relationship. Make it stick. And why don't you find me a rape victim or two that says having a gun on her wouldn't have made any difference at all.


Of the *bottom* 20 in that table, how many of *their* governments have strict gun control laws?

Why do the bottom 20 matter if the top ones don't? And they apparently don't, to you.

Eh, *you* are the one sitting their afraid that your government is going to come and kill you. How paranoid is that?

Oh, ANOTHER argument that's saying either "you're ignorant" or "you're scared." I've never once said "I'm afraid my government is going to come and kill me." Maybe you just know my personal feelings about everything more than I do, because you're a telepath?

And yet it matches. Switzerland - lots of guns, no gun culture, little crime. US - lots of guns, gun culture, massive amounts of crime.


Ah yes, a match. Must be a causal relationship, yes? Switzerland - lots of mountain terrain. US - not as much mountain terrain. Switzerland is predominately neutral, US is an active player in foreign issues. Therefore having more mountain terrain (per capita) leads to neutral foreign policies!1!! No. There must be more than statistics here.

What do you mean by "gun culture" anyway?

Switzerland's culture teaches responsible gun use at an early age (something I rather doubt pro-gun-control activists are for). Whereas because America is so inhibited psychologically (mostly by people afraid that matches cause forest fires) that it perversely discourages responsibility of gun use and tries to make it harder. But that just puts it on a pedestal, raising it's attractiveness the same way that God telling Eve not to eat the fruit makes the snake's job all that easier. If we had fewer gun "controls" in the sense of arbitrarily outlawing weapons on the basis of how scary they seem to legislators, we might be more like Switzerland.

Guns = deaths. It's that simple. I'm British, and i'm sure that people from gun-legal countries will disagree with our gun laws, but that more guns equal more deaths isn't an opinion, it's a fact. :D :D :D

Guns = deaths. It's that simple. I'm British, and i'm sure that people from gun-legal countries will disagree with our gun laws, but that more guns equal more deaths isn't an opinion, it's a fact. :D :D :D

And yet in the US, ownership has gone up while murder/crime has gone down. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

"Ah yes, a match. Must be a causal relationship, yes? Switzerland - lots of mountain terrain. US - not as much mountain terrain. Switzerland is predominately neutral, US is an active player in foreign issues. Therefore having more mountain terrain (per capita) leads to neutral foreign policies!1!! No. There must be more than statistics here."



What about the Appalachian Mountains, the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada Mountains?? All of these are in, or mostly within, the USA. So there goes your analogy. However, Switzerland has more Cuckoo Clocks, which is the real reason for less gun crime. :D :D :D

"And yet in the US, ownership has gone up while murder/crime has gone down. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact"

Can you please tell me from where you sourced this information? And even if this is true, why is higher gun ownership such a fantastic target to aim for (if you excuse the pun)

What about the Appalachian Mountains, the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada Mountains?? All of these are in, or mostly within, the USA. So there goes your analogy. However, Switzerland has more Cuckoo Clocks, which is the real reason for less gun crime. :D :D :D

That & yodeling.

well, back in the days before guns, the sword was the power symbol.
does this mean that the sword was the fetish and there was a sword culture. now was there a massive crime rate with swords? what about bows and arrows, or crossbows? was there a high crime rate in those days too? why keep blaiming guns for the crime rate?

I take it none of you have any experience of, say, logic? No? Well, I'll try to explain even so.

The fact that gun culture causes crime does not mean that it is the only cause of crime. All that I am saying is that in a culture where guns are revered and seen as symbols of power you will see higher gun crime rates. Therefore such a gun culture is a cause of crime.

And I'm using the term 'gun culture' not to mean a culture where guns are used, but specifically to refer to one where they are fetishised and seen as symbols of power.


And I'm still waiting for that alternative explanation as to why the US has such high gun crime rates.


I think you're confusing 'Gun Culture' with 'Criminal Culture'. Things become Fetishes through ignorance and glorification. Ignorance derives from lack of meaningful experience. Glorification derives from Hollywood.

This is not the 'Gun Culture' of gun-rights people he's describing, it's the fantasy-culture of MTV.

doing away with that would be nice. One of the best ways to Do AWAY with it is through exposure and education. Once the false mystique is removed through contact and knowledge, it not only becomes more difficult to blame the object for the crime, but it also shuts down the idea of the object as a course to power.

Indeed. NEW TOPIC: Should yodelling be made a compulsory subject in state schools?? Yay or nay?? :D :D :D

"Ah yes, a match. Must be a causal relationship, yes? Switzerland - lots of mountain terrain. US - not as much mountain terrain. Switzerland is predominately neutral, US is an active player in foreign issues. Therefore having more mountain terrain (per capita) leads to neutral foreign policies!1!! No. There must be more than statistics here."



What about the Appalachian Mountains, the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada Mountains?? All of these are in, or mostly within, the USA. So there goes your analogy. However, Switzerland has more Cuckoo Clocks, which is the real reason for less gun crime. :D :D :D

No, I meant per capita, not total! More of Switzerland's territory is occupied by mountain terrain than the US, which has large portions of flat river valleys and deserts and such. My analogy holds!

But you're 100% right on the cuckoo clocks. We should stock up on them! :D

well, back in the days before guns, the sword was the power symbol.
does this mean that the sword was the fetish and there was a sword culture. now was there a massive crime rate with swords? what about bows and arrows, or crossbows? was there a high crime rate in those days too? why keep blaiming guns for the crime rate?

What exactly do you need a gun for, Bluzblekistan?

I don't see the reason behind needing to possess one- they are absoloutley terrifying things, yet always seem to be defended by people who want to defend their right to possess one. I just don't get it. Anyone agree??

Why not try yodelling instead? It's cheap, free and funk-eee. :D :D :D

oh and by the way, here in Chicago, the crime rate has gone down significantly. How ever, most of the crimes that are commited are not done with guns. Just a couple days ago a woman stabbed her two young kids to death 500 TIMES!!!! no mention of a gun at all. All of those little girls that were abducted and killed by those damn molesters weren't killed with guns, but either stabbed, beaten, or suffocated to death. Hell, we should outlaw our arms all together. Just cut em off at the shoulder, that way no one will be able to pick up a gun, or a knife, or beat someone to death, or choke someone to death? Any takers, anyone at all??? how about you Westmorlandia? Just lop off your arms and well all be safer that way Come on whos with me?

Fine, I won't use a gun.
I'll just use my fist or my car, or a brick, or a stick, or a baton, or a taser, or a peice of rope, or a knife, or hell I could just beat the hell out of any criminal that comes my way. Is that more acceptable to you.
I mean, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

:D :gundge: No, I meant per capita, not total! More of Switzerland's territory is occupied by mountain terrain than the US, which has large portions of flat river valleys and deserts and such. My analogy holds!

But you're 100% right on the cuckoo clocks. We should stock up on them! :D


Hey,

But surely it's unfiar to compare a sub-continent (the USA) to a teeny little country(Sweiz) - There are certain US states which are much more mountainous per capita than Switzerland: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=america+switzerland+more+mountainous%3F&meta= , so does your analogy hold up? Yes and no! :D :D :D

But alas fewer clocks :( I think we need a Cuckoo thinktank

Oh, and by the way, here in Chicago the crime rate has gone down significantly. However, most of the crimes that are committed are not done with guns. Just a couple of days ago a woman stabbed her two young kids 500 TIMES! No mention of a gun at all. All of those little girls that were abducted and killed by those damn molesters weren't killed with guns, but either stabbed, beaten, or suffocated to death. Hell, we should outlaw our arms altogether. Just cut them off at the shoulder, that way no one will be able to pick up a gun, or a knife, or beat or choke someone to death? Any takers, anyone at all? how about you Westmorlandia? Just lop off your arms and well all be safer that way. Come on who's with me?

I want to see how many of the people who come up with this kind of argument actually use proper grammar, capitalisation etc.

Oh and by the way,
using a knife is sooo much quieter than a gun.
Isn't getting stabbed by a knife much more
horrific than getting shot?
I think knives are much, MUCH more
horrific than guns. Ever seen the bloody
battles that took place in the middle ages
with swords? And of all places, Great Britain?
GASP!

"Just a couple days ago a woman stabbed her two young kids to death 500 TIMES!!!!"

.......therefore you have just proved that your country has big big psychological problems among its' populous. You just backed up what i was thinking. So by your logic everyone should be locked in a straight-jacket, and denied access to all weapons? Please. Look, i could have gone for a swim or a run instead of writing this conversation, hence two things you can do toher than shoot/stab/potato-gun people. If we all had a little hobby or job we enjoyed, there would be nae bother. H'way the lads man!! (Geordie- NEast England- term there for y'all) :D :D :D

"And yet in the US, ownership has gone up while murder/crime has gone down. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact"

Can you please tell me from where you sourced this information? And even if this is true, why is higher gun ownership such a fantastic target to aim for (if you excuse the pun)

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

More or less is not the target, but the ability to do so by LAC's.

I want to see how many of the people who come up with this kind of argument actually use proper grammar, capitalisation etc.


boo hoo
did you read the argument? Instead of critisizing
my "grammer" how about understanding what I have just said. Last I checked, this is a forum,
not an English class.

I want to see how many of the people who come up with this kind of argument actually use proper grammar, capitalisation etc.


Eh mon, i can no use grammar mon. Mais puis-je parler en francais? S'il vous plait??? :D :D :D

We have in the UK what many Americans would consider "immoral" gun laws and yet far less gun crime. It seems the addage 'If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have gun's" hasnt caused any major problems in the UK. Comparitve murder rates are far lower in the UK and while vilonet crime may have gone up recently, that isnt rearly linked to gun laws seeing how they havent rearly changed very much in the last few years. So how do the Pro-Gun lobby explain the UK?

Less gun crime, more of everything else, and heres why the UK's laws are bad: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5757 I would laugh my ass off, if it weren't so sad.

"Just a couple days ago a woman stabbed her two young kids to death 500 TIMES!!!!"

.......therefore you have just proved that your country has big big psychological problems among its' populous. You just backed up what i was thinking. So by your logic everyone should be locked in a straight-jacket, and denied access to all weapons? Please. Look, i could have gone for a swim or a run instead of writing this conversation, hence two things you can do toher than shoot/stab/potato-gun people. If we all had a little hobby or job we enjoyed, there would be nae bother. H'way the lads man!! (Geordie- NEast England- term there for y'all) :D :D :D

Yes that would be a great idea for everyone to just hold hands and love each other. In the perfect world. By the way, the argument was that a gun culture is what spreads crime and violence. Obviously most, if not all crimes commited are by people who are disturbed in the brain. Not guns.

boo hoo
did you read the argument? Instead of critisizing
my "grammer" how about understanding what I have just said. Last I checked, this is a forum,
not an English class.



Sit down at the back, you! And stop chewing gum in my lesson! And stop shooting that uzi in my direction!!!

Today we shall learn about vowels..ooooooooooooo :D :D :D oo

"Tony Martin is not a worldly man. He has never been to San Francisco. It’s probable that he’s never even been to London. He’s a middle-aged man who, until two and one half years ago, lived a quiet, unexceptional life in a remote farmhouse in Norfolk, one of England’s least populated counties"

Well what's wrong with that??

http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php

In America it's much worse, far fewer people travel abroad than in the UK. ANd what's so great about SF anyway??? Ther is no explanation for this apparently random fact.

And, for Ankhmet, some random spelling mishtakes.... wot do u meen i kant schpewl???!?

Less gun crime, more of everything else, and heres why the UK's laws are bad: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5757 I would laugh my ass off, if it weren't so sad.


that has got to be the saddest story I have ever read.
Ladies and gentlemen, If you are a criminal in Britain, you will be allowed to commit any crime you want. The great laws will protect you more than the victims. And if the victim tries to stop you, they shall be locked up for your convienece. Good ol British thinking. what do say chaps?? Lets all go to Britain and go and break into some unsupecting chap's home and rob him of everything. And if he tries to stop us we'll just let the police lock him up for us!

"Tony Martin is not a worldly man. He has never been to San Francisco. It’s probable that he’s never even been to London. He’s a middle-aged man who, until two and one half years ago, lived a quiet, unexceptional life in a remote farmhouse in Norfolk, one of England’s least populated counties"

Well what's wrong with that??

http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php

In America it's much worse, far fewer people travel abroad than in the UK. ANd what's so great about SF anyway??? Ther is no explanation for this apparently random fact.

And, for Ankhmet, some random spelling mishtakes.... wot do u meen i kant schpewl???!?

Did you even read the whoe story?

I see you have gone offline, therefore not letting me reply to your comment. But i have the last word..... wooohahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

If you let people defend themselves you create an arms race.... quite simple really.... which means there are MORE guns, which i think is pretty bad (unless you like gettin shot frequently)

ANYway, yodelling anyone?? :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :headbang:

Oh and by the way,
Great Britain, who saved your arse in WWII and with what?
Flowers and formal letter to Adolf Hitler telling him to cease
and desist? HAH!
Look how well Chamberland did with Hitler by talking to him.
A few days later they roll into Poland. Then they started bombing
your arses!

Yes i did read the whole subject. " When only the police and the military are armed, the authorities tend to become distanced from the ordinary, unarmed citizenry, and unquestionably the police have become less responsive and less friendly in recent years." This is questionable- only certain sections of the police are armed- your average policeman WILL NOT patrol with arms (the guns not the bodily parts i mean- although that WOULD sure be less responsive!!)


Yes, i partly agree that you should be able to defend yourself. But if this were allowed at the time of the Tony Martin incident, it would be much more likely that both Tone and the Gypsies would have been armed, fearful of each other. Why is that a better situatoion, to creat more fear and paranoia thaen there already is? Amd remember, this is a very very rarre incidemt, not common to happen every day, so inevitably the issue will be blown out of all proportion.


Give the gypsies who robbed Tony M. big guns to shoot people with..... yeah, a gre-eeeeeeeeat idea!! :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

I also want to say one more thing, the book Jennifer Government is a MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not a book reader, in fact i hate books but one day i had a crazy idea to buythis book, it has the best story line ever it is funny, witty, dramatic, spontaniouse, and has me wanting to read more after every page. The good thing is that it is cheap i bought my book for $7.00...$7.00 i mean crap that's pretty cheap. Anyway i just finish rading the book and i want more, if anyone can get ahold of Max Berry please copy ans send this message to him.

Hoo Hoo Hoo Ha-Ha :)

Oh and by the way,
Great Britain, who saved your arse in WWII and with what?
Flowers and formal letter to Adolf Hitler telling him to cease
and desist? HAH!
Look how well Chamberland did with Hitler by talking to him.
A few days later they roll into Poland. Then they started bombing
your arses!


over 60 years ago mate....... wake up, everbody's moved on.. except you!

Oh and by the way,
Great Britain, who saved your arse in WWII and with what?

The RAF, with Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Yes i did read the whole subject. " When only the police and the military are armed, the authorities tend to become distanced from the ordinary, unarmed citizenry, and unquestionably the police have become less responsive and less friendly in recent years." This is questionable- only certain sections of the police are armed- your average policeman WILL NOT patrol with arms (the guns not the bodily parts i mean- although that WOULD sure be less responsive!!)


Yes, i partly agree that you should be able to defend yourself. But if this were allowed at the time of the Tony Martin incident, it would be much more likely that both Tone and the Gypsies would have been armed, fearful of each other. Why is that a better situatoion, to creat more fear and paranoia thaen there already is? Amd remember, this is a very very rarre incidemt, not common to happen every day, so inevitably the issue will be blown out of all proportion.


Give the gypsies who robbed Tony M. big guns to shoot people with..... yeah, a gre-eeeeeeeeat idea!! :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Would you rather keep on getting robbed of your presious possesions and having some gypses run amuck in your home while your family sleeps?
and by the way, would you want to rob a home when you know the homeowner is armed?

Indeed. GO RAF!

Would you rather keep on getting robbed of your presious possesions and having some gypses run amuck in your home while your family sleeps?
and by the way, would you want to rob a home when you know the homeowner is armed?

We don't have the death sentence for murder here, let alone burglary.

Would you rather keep on getting robbed of your presious possesions and having some gypses run amuck in your home while your family sleeps?
and by the way, would you want to rob a home when you know the homeowner is armed?

Yes, i would love a bunch of tooled-up gypsies to rob my house. If i knew the owner was armed though... that's a good question. I suppose if there's enough value in the things that you wanted to steal (jewellery, computers, etc), some people will always risk anything to get those precious things. There will always be burgulars, full stop (or period, USA).

So we're back to square one. No guns- risk of being caught or hurting houseowner upon their realisation they are being robbed (and in trying to stop burgular they are hurt themselves, or vice versa), guns- risk of being killed or killing someone yourself(ie the burgular). Didn't you say there has always been violence, with sticks, tasers and so on, before there were guns? So if a homeowner can already killl an intruder, why do they need a gun to do it when there are already plently of options available??? :D :D :D

The RAF, with Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Hmm.... last I check Great Britain was getting its arse kicked by the U-boats, the air raids, V-1s and V-2s. And by the way, wasn't it the British and the French who evacuated from Dunkirk in early 1940? wasn't it the good ol US of A who stepped in with its army to come to rescue of your nation? Our powerful Army, Navy, and Air Corp to be precise and HUGE amount of supplies we sent over to cover you. It wasn't until we stepped in that the tide turned in our favor, and put the Kraut on the run. Plus you only won in the Battle of Britain(Which was a great job, I have really have to admit). That was just a minor setback to the Germans. Given some more time they would have been able to get you anyway. If we hadn't gotten involved, Britain would now be speaking auf DEUTSCH!

Hmm.... last I check Great Britain was getting its arse kicked by the U-boats, the air raids, V-1s and V-2s. And by the way, wasn't it the British and the French who evacuated from Dunkirk in early 1940? wasn't it the good ol US of A who stepped in with its army to come to rescue of your nation? Our powerful Army, Navy, and Air Corp to be precise and HUGE amount of supplies we sent over to cover you. It wasn't until we stepped in that the tide turned in our favor, and put the Kraut on the run. Plus you only won in the Battle of Britain(Which was a great job, I have really have to admit). That was just a minor setback to the Germans. Given some more time they would have been able to get you anyway. If we hadn't gotten involved, Britain would now be speaking auf DEUTSCH!


That has nothing to do with the problem of domestic gun crime! Methinks you are dodging the question.... :D :D :D

Yes, i would love a bunch of tooled-up gypsies to rob my house. If i knew the owner was armed though... that's a good question. I suppose if there's enough value in the things that you wanted to steal (jewellery, computers, etc), some people will always risk anything to get those precious things. There will always be burgulars, full stop (or period, USA).

So we're back to square one. No guns- risk of being caught or hurting houseowner upon their realisation they are being robbed (and in trying to stop burgular they are hurt themselves, or vice versa), guns- risk of being killed or killing someone yourself(ie the burgular). Didn't you say there has always been violence, with sticks, tasers and so on, before there were guns? So if a homeowner can already killl an intruder, why do they need a gun to do it when there are already plently of options available??? :D :D :D


Yeah, I guess you are right. If someone breaks into my home, I'll just use my dad's samuri sword and slice his head off, or his nads. Is that more acceptable to you? Sure its a little more messy, but just as fun.

Hmm.... last I check Great Britain was getting its arse kicked by the U-boats, the air raids, V-1s and V-2s. And by the way, wasn't it the British and the French who evacuated from Dunkirk in early 1940? wasn't it the good ol US of A who stepped in with its army to come to rescue of your nation? Our powerful Army, Navy, and Air Corp to be precise and HUGE amount of supplies we sent over to cover you. It wasn't until we stepped in that the tide turned in our favor, and put the Kraut on the run. Plus you only won in the Battle of Britain(Which was a great job, I have really have to admit). That was just a minor setback to the Germans. Given some more time they would have been able to get you anyway. If we hadn't gotten involved, Britain would now be speaking auf DEUTSCH!

Last you checked what?

You seriously need a history lesson.

well, back in the days before guns, the sword was the power symbol.
does this mean that the sword was the fetish and there was a sword culture. now was there a massive crime rate with swords? what about bows and arrows, or crossbows? was there a high crime rate in those days too? why keep blaiming guns for the crime rate?

That's what i was talking about.

Anyway, why is America so amazing for helping the UK in WW2? You could have done it a lot earlier, and any later you in the USA might have been sprachen Deutsch also!!! Put that in el pipe and smoke-diddly-oke it, mr! :D :D :D ps, Bluzblekistan Why does it say you are offline if you are not?

That has nothing to do with the problem of domestic gun crime! Methinks you are dodging the question.... :D :D :D

Let me spell it out for you.
G-U-N-S S-A-V-E-D Y-O-U-R N-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!!
you keep saying guns are good for nothing
and should be done away with.
Haven't you learned anything yet?

Yeah, I guess you are right. If someone breaks into my home, I'll just use my dad's samuri sword and slice his head off, or his nads. Is that more acceptable to you? Sure its a little more messy, but just as fun.

Get a history lesson as suggested. :D :D :D

Slight change of subject, but If America is so great, why do you not play the worlds' most popular game, football("soccer") ?? Seems like the rest of the world doesn't like American football as it is so boring, much lihe many of the people.

Why didn't we help you earlier?
Hmm. I think it was all of those
anti war people who kept telling
FDR not to get involved in another
European war. They thought war was
not the answer. Thats why
we did not get involved any sooner.
FDR wanted to but th whimps said NO!

(PS I dont know why it says Im offline.
Strange)

Let me spell it out for you.
G-U-N-S S-A-V-E-D Y-O-U-R N-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!!
you keep saying guns are good for nothing
and should be done away with.
Haven't you learned anything yet?

The military beat the Axis, not a bunch of blokes grabbing guns from the mantel piece and forming a militia.

Civilians don't need guns.

Let me spell it out for you.
G-U-N-S S-A-V-E-D Y-O-U-R N-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!!
you keep saying guns are good for nothing
and should be done away with.
Haven't you learned anything yet?


G_U_N_S I-N W-A-R A-R-E neccessary, guns in P-U-B-Li-C are not. There is a big difference, sir Bluzblekistan. Guns are needed in war and indeed save not just the UK but the entire allied populations from Nasti invasion. But don't idolize them please!! :fluffle:

Let me spell it out for you.
G-U-N-S S-A-V-E-D Y-O-U-R N-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!!
you keep saying guns are good for nothing
and should be done away with.
Haven't you learned anything yet?

In the hands of the military. Nobody's suggesting that the military shouldn't have guns.

Yeah, I guess you are right. If someone breaks into my home, I'll just use my dad's samuri sword and slice his head off, or his nads. Is that more acceptable to you? Sure its a little more messy, but just as fun.

Get a history lesson as suggested. :D :D :D

Slight change of subject, but If America is so great, why do you not play the worlds' most popular game, football("soccer") ?? Seems like the rest of the world doesn't like American football as it is so boring, much lihe many of the people.

American football is a fairly expensive sport... jersey, pants, pads and helmet run upwards of $200-$300 per person

soccer is cheap -- all you need is a ball and something to call a goal. this has probably greatly helped it become the world's most popular sport -- anyone can afford to play it. Also helping it is the fact that there's little physical contact... sure guys get kicked in the shin and cry for 5 minutes on the ground (one reason Americans are not soccer fans -- soccer players cry like little girls over the slightest injuries. No self-respecting man should allow himself to be carried off the field with only a bruised shin.

And talk about boring... soccer successfully puts me to sleep every night... since most games have a total of about 2 goals. 2 goals for 90 minutes of play. Kick the ball around, lob it into the box... the game is predictable, at least as predictable as football. Football is exciting... watching guys get pulverised into the ground... the NFL has the world's fastest athletes outside of formal sprinting (olympic level), the strongest athletes outside of bodybuilding and maybe the wrestling heavyweights... the best ahtletes, arguably, in the world. They are ripped.

When I was at Wisconsin I played pick-up basketball games down at one of the campus recreational facilities. One of the Badger football players played once... he was roughly my height and weight -- about 5'11" and 185 pounds.

He happened to be able to bench press 385 pounds. He was a college football player... he would not become an NFL player (went to some team's training camp and maybe made the practice squad but never actually played in an NFL game).

Last you checked what?

You seriously need a history lesson.


A lesson in what? That standing up to an
armed enemy is not the answer?
Or protecting your rights,
your civil liberties, your nation
by any means nessecary is
wrong?

In the hands of the military. Nobody's suggesting that the military shouldn't have guns.


I agree Nimzonia. There's a big difference between public and military, i'm sure you'd agree? :)

Yes, i would love a bunch of tooled-up gypsies to rob my house. If i knew the owner was armed though... that's a good question. I suppose if there's enough value in the things that you wanted to steal (jewellery, computers, etc), some people will always risk anything to get those precious things. There will always be burgulars, full stop (or period, USA).

So we're back to square one. No guns- risk of being caught or hurting houseowner upon their realisation they are being robbed (and in trying to stop burgular they are hurt themselves, or vice versa), guns- risk of being killed or killing someone yourself(ie the burgular). Didn't you say there has always been violence, with sticks, tasers and so on, before there were guns? So if a homeowner can already killl an intruder, why do they need a gun to do it when there are already plently of options available??? :D :D :D

Yeah, guns are safer for the defender, you don't have to get within three feet to kill or injure somebody with the gun, with a knife, stick, taser, etc. you have to get a lot closer and increase your own risk of injury.

A lesson in what? That standing up to an
armed enemy is not the answer?
Or protecting your rights,
your civil liberties, your nation
by any means nessecary is
wrong?

Protect your nation from who?

The military deal with foreign threats, the police deal with criminal threats, and elections deal with political threats.

Yeah, guns are safer for the defender, you don't have to get within three feet to kill or injure somebody with the gun, with a knife, stick, taser, etc. you have to get a lot closer and increase your own risk of injury.

And in what situation is your life under threat by someone across the room?

American football is a fairly expensive sport... jersey, pants, pads and helmet run upwards of $200-$300 per person

soccer is cheap -- all you need is a ball and something to call a goal. this has probably greatly helped it become the world's most popular sport -- anyone can afford to play it.


Definitely. I like footie a lot for those reasons- it's so easy! Nothing against Afootball, i don't really understand it enough to pass comment really.

Where is everyone typing form? UK? USA? Europe? What time is it everywhere????

yes there is a difference. I know that.
But here, let us look at the similarties though
between a criminal and an enemy army.
Both are intent on causing harm to you.
Both will use force to make you comply with their
demands.
Both are armed, either with weapons or just with their
fists.
The military needs the guns to take on and destroy
the enemy.
We (ie the civilians) have to protect ourselves
from the "enemy"

Protect your nation from who?

The military deal with foreign threats, the police deal with criminal threats, and elections deal with political threats.


So why are there so many crimes going on
here with our police on the job. Seems
to me that they are not doing their job well enogh
to deter criminals. Apparently our military
is doing a pretty good job of keeping any enemy
armies off our land, so where is your argument there?

yes there is a difference. I know that.
But here, let us look at the similarties though
between a criminal and an enemy army.
Both are intent on causing harm to you.
Both will use force to make you comply with their
demands.
Both are armed, either with weapons or just with their
fists.
The military needs the guns to take on and destroy
the enemy.
We (ie the civilians) have to protect ourselves
from the "enemy"

Most criminals do not want to cause you physical harm. They commit crime for financial gain. Ergo your analogy is flawed.

Great Britain, who saved your arse in WWII and with what?


Please, Americans. The P-51. The supposed best American plane of WW2. German design, British engine. Come off it.

Protect your nation from who?

The military deal with foreign threats, the police deal with criminal threats, and elections deal with political threats.


So why are there so many crimes going on
here with our police on the job. Seems
to me that they are not doing their job well enogh
to deter criminals. Apparently our military
is doing a pretty good job of keeping any enemy
armies off our land, so where is your argument there?

yes there is a difference. I know that.
But here, let us look at the similarties though
between a criminal and an enemy army.
Both are intent on causing harm to you.
Both will use force to make you comply with their
demands.
Both are armed, either with weapons or just with their
fists.
The military needs the guns to take on and destroy
the enemy.
We (ie the civilians) have to protect ourselves
from the "enemy"


Not quite true. Criminals often just want to steal to pay for drugs/booze/food/ to sell "to order" and so on. Not always want to hurt people, although obvioulsy some criminals will want to hurt people. Who is the "enemy"? it's like the "war" on terrorism- who are we fighting against? Why not try and stop criminals before they start by offering more social security, better welfare and support, education, rehabilitation and so on? No one is evil, you (in my opinion) shouldn't refer to all criminals as the "enemy"- many of my friends take drugs, copy CDs, download mp3s off P2P sites and so on- are they the enemy? Not to me. There are many reasons that people commit criminal acts, it's not a simple "they're all terrible crims" attitude that's gonna help anyone. What do you think of that?? :D :D :D

American football is a fairly expensive sport... jersey, pants, pads and helmet run upwards of $200-$300 per person

soccer is cheap -- all you need is a ball and something to call a goal. this has probably greatly helped it become the world's most popular sport -- anyone can afford to play it. Also helping it is the fact that there's little physical contact... sure guys get kicked in the shin and cry for 5 minutes on the ground (one reason Americans are not soccer fans -- soccer players cry like little girls over the slightest injuries. No self-respecting man should allow himself to be carried off the field with only a bruised shin.

And talk about boring... soccer successfully puts me to sleep every night... since most games have a total of about 2 goals. 2 goals for 90 minutes of play. Kick the ball around, lob it into the box... the game is predictable, at least as predictable as football. Football is exciting... watching guys get pulverised into the ground... the NFL has the world's fastest athletes outside of formal sprinting (olympic level), the strongest athletes outside of bodybuilding and maybe the wrestling heavyweights... the best ahtletes, arguably, in the world. They are ripped.

When I was at Wisconsin I played pick-up basketball games down at one of the campus recreational facilities. One of the Badger football players played once... he was roughly my height and weight -- about 5'11" and 185 pounds.

He happened to be able to bench press 385 pounds. He was a college football player... he would not become an NFL player (went to some team's training camp and maybe made the practice squad but never actually played in an NFL game).

Hah, football expensive? All you need is a ball and 22 guys, even for tackle ball, the pads just make it hurt more, not protect anyone in my experience.

Please, Americans. The P-51. The supposed best American plane of WW2. German design, British engine. Come off it.


Uhh.... American design, American engine (first) then british engine.
Only German way of mass producing it
http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51.shtml

Plus we built it for you!

Plus, how many of those super ME262
were shot down by P-51s?

Uhh.... American design, American engine (first) then british engine.
Only German way of mass producing it
http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51.shtml

Plus we built it for you!


But it's sponsored by Jelly Belly! Therefore not cool! (read also: Sheffield Wednesday "Cupa Chups" period - hehe).

uh if you check the pic, its from
an air race in Reno, Nevada.
Duh!

Duh what?? You talkin' to me?

The military beat the Axis, not a bunch of blokes grabbing guns from the mantel piece and forming a militia.

Civilians don't need guns.

Hey by the way!
Remember Stalingrad?? Didn't like
the ENTIRE survivng civilian population
take up arms against the Germans as well
as the army? What about the American
Revolution? Don't make me go back to that
argument again.

Duh what?? You talkin' to me?

Yup!

And in what situation is your life under threat by someone across the room?

How am I to know that he will not be a threat when he gets closer? If a man has broken into my home at night then I can be reasonably certain that he is not here to give me money, in fact I can be pretty certain that he is here to either steal my posessions or injure myself or my family.

Hah, football expensive? All you need is a ball and 22 guys, even for tackle ball, the pads just make it hurt more, not protect anyone in my experience.

now consider the expense to play organized football... per-person cost is high.

plus, if you're playing tackle football without pads or helmet, you can lose teeth, break a jaw (not to mention the regular football injuries like concussions, sprained ankles, torn anterior cruciate ligaments (ACLs), hip-pointers, dislocated shoulders, etc.), etc... unlike rugby, there is no rule against tackling high.

we were clowning around one winter, playing football with nothing but what we had on and a ball, and one of my friends, who had braces, knocked his teeth into another friend's head. there was blood everywhere, the one friend's teeth had to be re-set and/or put back in and his lips stitched up... my other friend's head required stitches. It was nasty.

WHy duh? Jelly Belly isn't cool for an all american fighting, killing machine!! Where is the death and destruction and killing and burning and... jelly beans??


Duh right back at ya!

Hey by the way!
Remember Stalingrad?? Didn't like
the ENTIRE survivng civilian population
take up arms against the Germans as well
as the army? What about the American
Revolution? Don't make me go back to that
argument again.

So who is threatening to invade you right now?

And in what situation is your life under threat by someone across the room?

when an invader is standing in your bedroom and holding a knife over your wife or child in the middle of the night.
Do I have to come over there and demostrate that to you?

and... it's 1:24pm here

now consider the expense to play organized football... per-person cost is high.

plus, if you're playing tackle football without pads or helmet, you can lose teeth, break a jaw (not to mention the regular football injuries like concussions, sprained ankles, torn anterior cruciate ligaments (ACLs), hip-pointers, dislocated shoulders, etc.), etc... unlike rugby, there is no rule against tackling high.

we were clowning around one winter, playing football with nothing but what we had on and a ball, and one of my friends, who had braces, knocked his teeth into another friend's head. there was blood everywhere, the one friend's teeth had to be re-set and/or put back in and his lips stitched up... my other friend's head required stitches. It was nasty.

I broke my leg playing in the gym, so? You can get hurt a lot easier playing organised football than you can playing pick-up ball.

WHy duh? Jelly Belly isn't cool for an all american fighting, killing machine!! Where is the death and destruction and killing and burning and... jelly beans??


Duh right back at ya!


Are you on somehing right now?
All I posted was some technical info
on the P-51 Mustang and some history
behind it and there you go laughing about
some stupid Jelly Belly picture.

Oh for crying out loud, not this "We saved your assess in WW2" shit again.

Look here (http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html)

That's not the only site, it's just the first one I found.

Yankee scumbags.

Oh for crying out loud, not this "We saved your assess in WW2" shit again.

Look here (http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html)

That's not the only site, it's just the first one I found.

Yankee scumbags.

Hey, I'm a southerner, don't include me in the same category as those damn yankees.

when an invader is standing in your bedroom and holding a knife over your wife or child in the middle of the night.
Do I have to come over there and demostrate that to you?

So you wake up, see then just standing there (with a clear shot) and they stay still until you find your gun and shoot them?

Bollocks.

Sweet! It's 19:28 here- i'm going to hit the town soon, drink double gin and lemonade and be quite drunk. And shoot lots of people. Because I'm high on jelly beans!!! WooooOOOoooooOOAAaaAAAaHHHHHHHH BEANS BEANS good for your heart, the more you eat the more you......

ahh yes the conspiracy crap.
Boy is there anything you won't use?
How about the Conspiracy about the
Royal Crown killing Princess Di
because she was in the way?
HMMM????

So you wake up, see then just standing there (with a clear shot) and they stay still until you find your gun and shoot them?

Bollocks.

You mean the one on my nightstand, about three inches from my right hand, ready to load and fire in under two seconds?

Can you not use yer eyes? The first picture of a plane had JELLY BEAN all over it!! Anyway, jelly bean is a German-owned company. HA!

Hey, I'm a southerner, don't include me in the same category as those damn yankees.

hey just because we the North beat you guys,
don't take it out on me callin me a Yankee.
Plus my family comes from Europe

ahh yes the conspiracy crap.
Boy is there anything you won't use?
How about the Conspiracy about the
Royal Crown killing Princess Di
because she was in the way?
HMMM????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

or here http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4368

Can you not use yer eyes? The first picture of a plane had JELLY BEAN all over it!! Anyway, jelly bean is a German-owned company. HA!

DID YOU READ THE CAPTION?
Reno Pics, as in the airplane races
held in Reno Nevada. Don't you
know that racers have sponsers on their
racing vehicle? Why is everybody so
insolent today??

hey just because we the North beat you guys,
don't take it out on me callin me a Yankee.
Plus my family comes from Europe

Just cause your a damn yakee doesn't mean I have to be, if you don't wanna be a yankee, move to dixie.

DID YOU READ THE CAPTION?
Reno Pics, as in the airplane races
held in Reno Nevada. Don't you
know that racers have sponsers on their
racing vehicle? Why is everybody so
insolent today??

Did you read my post? Jelly Bean is GERMAN!!!!!!!!

GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!

or here's another

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1696581.stm

Did you read my post? Jelly Bean is GERMAN!!!!!!!!

GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!
GERMAN!!!!!!!!

No one give a good go damn, a flying fuck, a rats ass, or any combination thereof about jelly beans ownership, or wether or not the Americans saved your asses in WW2 or vice versa.

No one give a good go damn, a flying fuck, a rats ass, or any combination thereof about jelly beans ownership, or wether or not the Americans saved your asses in WW2 or vice versa.

I care. Deeply *national anthem plays in background*.

http://www.jellybeanchurch.com/

http://www.scary-crayon.com/main.php

www.b3ta.co.uk

I care. Deeply *national anthem plays in background*.

http://www.jellybeanchurch.com/

http://www.scary-crayon.com/main.php

www.b3ta.co.uk

Ok, no one important cares, can we get back to the topic at hand now?

ok, shoot (not me, obviously). Go. Go back to the topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

or here http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4368

Just out of curiosity,
did those companies just jump right in
right before the war stared and Nazis come to power?
Seems to me that Ford had a plant there before.
Back in those days, I really doubt that Ford and GM
knew that Hitler would start using those plants for rebuilding a brand new
military force and then take over the world. Auto production was big in those days. Usually when a tyrant comes to power he seizes everything in the nation for his own personal use. Were there US citizens emploied there??
Mind you, it was the GERMAN branch of Ford.
But hey, I guess Clinton giving nuclear production information
to Kim Yung Il in the 90s is not the reason why they have nuclear
capabitlities today is it?

ok, shoot (not me, obviously). Go. Go back to the topic.

Why does everyone think that just because britain has less gun crimes, that it means that britain also has less crime over-all?

edit: oh yeah I forgot, bye bye egg nog :sniper: , heh

why should we be responsible for someone else
who takes advanatge of what is given to him?

I broke my leg playing in the gym, so? You can get hurt a lot easier playing organised football than you can playing pick-up ball.

in organized football it's not uncommon to hate the opposing team... whereas in a pick-up game, it's just a bunch of guys having fun.

plus... are you really going full-speed without the pads? we sure as hell did in high school ball. and even though we were fairly slow (compared to what the world sees on TV) we still brought it on every play. I played QB on O so i wasn't really out to get anyone (lol) but if i took a cheap shot after i'd thrown the ball, i'd not-so-politely ask one of my linemen to take that guy out. we were mean mo-fo's!

so i would imagine that since

a)the intensity and
b)the hatred and
c)the speed

are all cranked up in an organized game more than they are in a friendly pick-up game... that would account for your belief in the "safety" of a football pick-up game and brutality of the padded/helmeted organized game.