stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 12:10 AM |
|
|
quote
And (at the risk of getting serious for a moment) to stephen_g, and the others who referred to our "thing" with guns, we see our freedom
from colony status as resulting from having an armed population - it's a big deal and we're proud of it. Canada and Australia (as I
understand it) waited for permission to leave the Empire, but waiting isn't something we're good at.
is having kids blow themselves away when they find daddies gun in the night stand worth that? Or being shot by a crazy as you load your car at home
depot worth that? Or is having a crazy kid machine gun a school worth that?
I think not.
The only justification I can see for guns is hunting or defending yourself from nature - ie a friggin big bear in the woods.
you dont need hand guns or automatics for that.
We can still own shotguns in the uk, but autos and hand guns were banned after the hungerford massacre and the killing of 15 kids in dunblane by a mad
peadophile.
there are no real reasons to hold a hand gun at home. If you have one, so does the criminal or the burglar in your home
atb
steve
|
|
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 04:55 AM |
|
|
Guns
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
Here are my serious answers, for what they're worth:
"is having kids blow themselves away when they find daddies gun in the night stand worth (allowing people to own handguns and rifles)?"
If an adult leaves a gun where his young kids can get at it, he's a criminal - I'd suggest at least a year in the big house as a
"time out" for him to think things over, more if someone's actually hurt. By contrast, my 35-year-old son-in-law has two boys (aged
1 and 3), and he's into "old West" reenactments - dressing up like a 1890's cowboy, shooting ball and powder pistols, etc. He
keeps about a dozen firearms in his home - in a gun safe. As a bumper sticker here says, "Guns don't kill people, people kill
people."
"Or being shot by a crazy as you load your car at home depot worth that?"
Is there no armed robbery on the Isle? Don't the bad guys somehow find handguns when they want one? Maybe not, I don't know, but if
you're more comfortable with a knife in your ribs or a rusty straight razor to your throat, I think you're missing something pretty basic.
Bad guys will use anything cheap and scary, not just guns.
"Or is having a crazy kid machine gun a school worth that?"
I have to agree with you there. It would be much better for teenage headcases to use homemade bombs . . . or to put poison in the school lunches.
"you dont need hand guns or automatics for that. We can still own shotguns in the uk, but autos and hand guns were banned . . ."
Gun folks here distinguish between automatic and semi-automatic actions, the former meaning it will continue to fire rounds as long as you hold the
trigger in, and the latter meaning one round per trigger pull. Is that distinction made in the UK? Anti-gun people here frequently SAY they want to
ban "automatics" but then write legislation that would ban semi-automatics, too.
". . . If you have one (gun), so does the criminal or the burglar in your home."
FWIW, I don't own any guns, but when I was in the Army Reserve (1965-71), I was Expert with the M1, M14, M14 automatic, M60 machine gun, and was
the best marksman in my 250-man company (despite the fact I barely qualified with the 45-caliber pistol!). Like most boys in my area, I took a
firearm safety course when I was 12, and had my own 22-caliber rifle for use on our farm. City kids can't relate to that, but a very small part
of our country is cities.
I've thought about getting a shotgun for home security, but it's illegal to cut down the barrel to a length that can be maneuvered while
walking down a hallway, so if I get any firearm, it will probably be a handgun (semi-automatic), just like the bad guy coming down the hall toward my
bedroom probably has.
Life ain't no video game.
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 04:44 PM |
|
|
It still amazes me that people can justify owning a gun for anything but hunting. The statics always prove that you are much more likely to be shot at
home if you own a gun. How you going to get the gun out of the gun safe in time to stop and man with a gun whose just come into your bedroom at night
and stuck his straight up your arse? If it's not to hand then it's not going to help you much with an intruder. And if it's to hand,
then anybody can get hold of it. And yes, the person who does leave one lying around may be a 'criminal', not much consolation for the
dead child though, is it.
And the line 'Guns don't kill people - people do' is the lamest thing I've ever heard. Don't know many five year old
that could do much damage with anything but daddy's gun, do you?
And if psycho/f*cked up teenage wakes up one morning with a deadwish is he really likely to sit down and try and make a bomb - or go and get a PhD in
chemist to learn how to poison people. I think not - not when it's so easy to just go any get daddy semi! In the UK we still have this problem
with the only thing available to kids - knives - not great, but at least you can't sit on a balcony and pick off your class mates.....
And in response to your question about armed robbery in the UK, it is so rare if anybody gets shot by anything more than a pea-shooter in the UK it
always makes national news. I seem to remember a statistic that a total of about a hundred people or so got shot in the UK last year, in the US it
would be more in a single day. Criminals rarely carry guns in the UK because home-owners and the police so rare have them. We still use good old
'fisty-cuffs'. And the vast majority of the few people killed each year are gang members or other criminals - not the general public.
It would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad - the US are so obsessed with getting killed by terrorists, and yet the number of Americans killed by
fellow Americans is vastly higher than the number killed by terrorists - even with 9/11 taken into account. But I suppose it's ok - as
it's all done in the name of 'freedom', and at least it ain't a 'rag-head' doing the killing.
Sorry - just got on the soap box again - gonna get off now
[Edited on 6/11/04 by Jasper]
[Edited on 6/11/04 by Jasper]
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 05:03 PM |
|
|
there are a lot more peeps shot over here than the powers that be would like you know about.
i used to go to murder scenes at least twice a week to pick up cars used in murder/shootings,multiply that by the amount of peeps doing the same job
as me over the country and it probly nearly 1000.
only time they make news is when its in broard daylight in the high street
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 05:06 PM |
|
|
Yes - but John, u live in West London, where at least 95% of shooting take place
Joking aside though, even if the number is a fair bit higher, it is still mostly scumbags killing other scumbags - so it's a good thing really
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
not all scumbags deserve shooting. I've known of a few blokes with a shady past who have been murdered or tortured for money and drugs, most
didnt deserve it.
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 06:31 PM |
|
|
good point jasper,ive had a gun pointed at me and been offered said weapons for a couple of hundred quid,i have also fired said weapons including 45,s
38,s 9mm and shot guns,they are ok in safe hands but most crims round here are anything but safe
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 6/11/04 at 11:28 PM |
|
|
It's quite amusing that this topic was posted on the day that we celebrate Guy Fawkes.
He gets my vote every time
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
The Shootist
|
 posted on 7/11/04 at 04:26 AM |
|
|
UK Statistics can be missleading....
In the US crime data is based on reported crime.
Unless the method in the UK has been changed recently, crime data is based on convictions. If no-one was caught and convicted then no statistic is
logged.
Yes, a nutcase will sit down and build a bomb. Columbin was planned for weeks ahead of time, and other students knew of the threat...... It was
headuptheirarse faculty that ingnored the warning signs.
|
|
|
type r1
|
| posted on 7/11/04 at 03:40 PM |
|
|
peeps,
has anyone actually read the bill of rights?
i believe we are discussing the second amendment, are we not?
anyway, found a copy on the net.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried
by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people.
does the second amendment actually allow individual civilians to keep and bear arms, or is it actually talking about "a well regulated
militia"?
seems to me that there is quite a bit of discussion taking place on this forum between people who are not in full possession of the facts.
seem to remember another discussion where a particular manufacturer was criticised about it's wishbones and there wasn't even a photograph
of the offending article available, let alone a failure analysis.
during a discussion about the merits of butter over margarine, it was stated by one individual that butter was healthier than margarine and that all
margarine contained hydrogenated/trans fat.
trivial examples maybe, but examples of uninformed/uneducated discussion that leads where, exactly?
are you not familiar with the saying?
"if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
so now that we are in possession of the facts, i would be interested to hear what the various interpretations of "a well regulated
militia" are.
kindest regards,
dom.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 7/11/04 at 06:39 PM |
|
|
not a clue about the militia, but amendment 8 is a blinder...
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 7/11/04 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by type r1
"if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
dom.
so very true. i like it a lot
tom
|
|
|
Brooky
|
| posted on 7/11/04 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by theconrodkid
there are a lot more peeps shot over here than the powers that be would like you know about.
i used to go to murder scenes at least twice a week to pick up cars used in murder/shootings,multiply that by the amount of peeps doing the same job
as me over the country and it probly nearly 1000.
only time they make news is when its in broard daylight in the high street
I work as fireman in brum and it seems that every other weeek we have an emergency road closure notice over the comms system due to a fire arms
incident.
But I will start to log it as a matter of interest.
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 8/11/04 at 03:49 AM |
|
|
Gun laws (for the new PM to consider)
I believe New York (city) and Washington DC (city) have laws that prevent possession of, let alone use of, a handgun, and their rates of crime with
handguns are among the highest in the US.
At the other end of the continuum, you'll LOVE this:
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
The Shootist
|
| posted on 8/11/04 at 05:05 AM |
|
|
Good one carcentric
Yep, DC and New York are some of the most dangerous places not only to live but to exercise your 2nd amendment right.
Just after the 1976 DC gun ban, an incedent occured where 3 female roomamtes in a townhouse were broken in on during the night. 1 lived downstairs and
2 had upstairs bedrooms. The assailants got to the lady downstairs and her struggles woke the roomates upstairs. The 2 upstairs called 911 (emergency
number for police fire etc.) and crawled out the upstairs window to hide and watch for the police. After 15 minutes a police car drove by slowed in
front of the house and went on. Then 1 of the ladies climbed back into the house and called 911 again. This time the police came back 20 minutes
later. By then the downstair roomate had been gang raped repeatedly, and the suspect were gone.
The women sued the police for failure to answer the call in an efficient manner. The court ruled that a citizen has no reasonable right to expect the
police to protect them.
But you still will go to jail for owning a gun in DC..... unless your're a Senator or Congressman, they can carry for self-protection.
The militia statement in the Bill of Rights must be considered in context. America at this time had no standing army, nor any plans to form one. The
states were pretty much autonomous at that point, and most had laws which REQUIRED citizens to keep and maintain weapons suitable for use in war.
These laws specified the calibur and size of weapon, required you to have certain support equipment such as bullet moulds and powder, and required the
state to provide refills of these provisions, if a war did arise.
Some pundits claim this militia refers to our National Guard reserves, but they wern't formed till the early 1900's.
For some good info on the context of the Bill of Rights, the communictions between the authors has been preserved and these documents are know as the
Federalist Papers. the FP are readily available on the net.
|
|
|
type r1
|
| posted on 8/11/04 at 11:52 AM |
|
|
dudes,
the points made by 'the shootist' (not sure of his real name as he doesn't mention it at the end of his post) are not entirely
relevant.
no one is denying the fact that violent crime exists. most of us live in societies where there are those who flout the law, and in that process,
violate the human rights and civil liberties of others, even take their lives. that doesn't mean that it's o.k. for people to own guns
(except for sport). two wrongs don't make a right.
it is not the responsibility of the general public to enforce the law or to punish criminals, that is the job of the police force, the judiciary and
the penal system.
we are entitled to defend ourselves, using reasonable force, nothing more. we are also entitled to expect any law enforcing agency, that we pay for
through our taxes, to do the job they're paid to do and protect us.
as 'the shootist' says, the bill of rights was written before there was a national guard. but the national guard is "a well
regulated militia" which serves the citizens of the u.s. as proscribed by the second ammendment.
no civilian anywhere in the world (the u.s. included) has the right to deprive another person of their life, whether they are a criminal or not. so
why would they want to own a gun? (playing devil's advocate here a bit, to stimulate the discussion).
thoughts anyone?
regards,
dom.
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 01:12 AM |
|
|
Miscellaneous ramblings toward compromise
quote:
Originally posted by type r1
dudes, . . . we are entitled to defend ourselves, using reasonable force, nothing more.. . .no civilian anywhere in the world (the u.s. included) has
the right to deprive another person of their life, whether they are a criminal or not. so why would they want to own a gun? . . .
Okay, I won't intentionally kill anyone who's coming at me with ill intent. I'll just "shoot to maim."
(In no particular order) Rambling #1. I remember a shell made 50 years ago (I don't know if they're still available or not) - it was a 22
caliber long rifle round, but instead of a lead slug, it was filled with bird shot. I'd think a face full of bird shot at ten feet, while not
lethal in most cases, might dissuade (at least temporarily) a ne'er-do-well intent on busting me up. The problem is when he recovers, serves
his time, and gets back out on the street with a face that looks like last year's meat loaf . . . .
Rambling #2. How are you folks who'd never kill (even in self-defense) gonna prevail without hurting t'other feller? Are you all Kung
Fu masters (or stage hypnotists)?
Rambling #3. If the assailant "only" has an 18" long iron pipe for a weapon, am I using unreasonable force to hit him with a
24" pipe? And if he swings and misses, must I also swing and miss - to be "fair?"
Rambling #4: Have any of the Charles Bronson movies (e.g., any of the five "Death Wish" films) ever played in the UK? If they have, are
they well received or seen as degenerate?
Rambling #5. I believe "reasonable force" is the amount of violence it takes to stop an attack. This may mean you do something harmful,
then stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If he does you do something worse, then stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If
you're being attacked by someone high on PCP (or the Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie), you must kill him
if you can't outrun him.
Getting back to the start of this thread, do any of the PM candidates have a nickname of "cowboy," "the equalizer,"
"Conan the Barbarian," or some such? I'm beginning to think that's who I should back in your next election.
[Edited on 9/11/04 by carcentric]
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 03:34 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by carcentric
(In no particular order) Rambling #1. I remember a shell made 50 years ago (I don't know if they're still available or not) - it was a 22
caliber long rifle round, but instead of a lead slug, it was filled with bird shot. I'd think a face full of bird shot at ten feet, while not
lethal in most cases, might dissuade (at least temporarily) a ne'er-do-well intent on busting me up. The problem is when he recovers, serves
his time, and gets back out on the street with a face that looks like last year's meat loaf . . . .
Rambling #2. How are you folks who'd never kill (even in self-defense) gonna prevail without hurting t'other feller? Are you all Kung
Fu masters (or stage hypnotists)?
Rambling #3. If the assailant "only" has an 18" long iron pipe for a weapon, am I using unreasonable force to hit him with a
24" pipe? And if he swings and misses, must I also swing and miss - to be "fair?"
Rambling #4: Have any of the Charles Bronson movies (e.g., any of the five "Death Wish" films) ever played in the UK? If they have, are
they well received or seen as degenerate?
Rambling #5. I believe "reasonable force" is the amount of violence it takes to stop an attack. This may mean you do something harmful,
then stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If he does you do something worse, then stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If
you're being attacked by someone high on PCP (or the Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie), you must kill him
if you can't outrun him.
Getting back to the start of this thread, do any of the PM candidates have a nickname of "cowboy," "the equalizer,"
"Conan the Barbarian," or some such? I'm beginning to think that's who I should back in your next election.
Is this all fairly representative of the current American psychi?
Is this (and carcentric's previous posts in this thread) what comes from "free speech" and "the right to bear arms"?
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 05:01 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
Is this all fairly representative of the current American psychi? . . .
Only in the counties shown in RED below:
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 08:58 AM |
|
|
I'm just very glad we have lots of deep water between us - and metal detectors at our borders ........
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 10:25 AM |
|
|
(In no particular order) Rambling #1.
I have a business associate that was shot in the face with a shotgun in a restaurant in america. He was having a meal with a client, when the partner
of a waitress came in with the intent to kill her, which he duly did. He then blew away the owner and his wife, then started to shoot around the
restaurant. My aquaintence ducked behind a table, and only got partial force. The guy then shot himself. The police asked my associate to come back a
couple hrs later to describe what happened. When he got back to the UK his face was full of black dots. They don’t dig pellets out
– they wait for them to grow out.
Now, if guns were not available, perhaps the guy might have hit her about a bit and moved his life on. Instead, four people died. For a lovers
tiff.
Rambling #2. How are you folks who'd never kill (even in self-defense) gonna prevail without hurting t'other feller? Are you all Kung Fu
masters (or stage hypnotists)?
Hurting the other fella isnt the point. The reason ‘the state’ and law exists is to have a mechanism that punishes criminals. In
UK law you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to kill or maim, even in self defence. All you are allowed to do is to use reasonable force. That doesn’t
give you the right to end someones life cos they were trying to steal your video recorder. How could that make any kind of sense!!!!!! A guy that
shot a burglar (tony martin) running away from his home was given several years jail. Yes, he shot a ‘scumbag’ but the guy was
shot in the back running away from a house after being chaed out with a shotgun. He was 16. Was that a fair response to a burglary?
Rambling #3. If the assailant "only" has an 18" long iron pipe for a weapon, am I using unreasonable force to hit him with a
24" pipe? And if he swings and misses, must I also swing and miss - to be "fair?"
Again, UK law states reasonable force.
Rambling #4: Have any of the Charles Bronson movies (e.g., any of the five "Death Wish" films) ever played in the UK? If they have, are
they well received or seen as degenerate?
They may have been controversial at the time, but watching them now they are total cheese and total total total stereotypical crap. Michael Winner
(director) is pretty cheesy too. Yeah, we all like shoot em ups, and Arnie blowing the bad guys away, but again, is the sentence for stealing a wallet
a bullet?
Rambling #5. I believe "reasonable force" is the amount of violence it takes to stop an attack. This may mean you do something harmful,
then stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If he does you do something worse, then stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If
you're being attacked by someone high on PCP (or the Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie), you must kill him
if you can't outrun him.
In UK law you are pretty likely to end up in court if you get into a major battle like this. You have legs – use them to get out of the
situation.
Getting back to the start of this thread, do any of the PM candidates have a nickname of "cowboy," "the equalizer,"
"Conan the Barbarian," or some such? I'm beginning to think that's who I should back in your next election.
The only terms I can think or are ‘two jags’ for john prescott, and something pretty unmentionable for the rest.
|
|
|
skinny
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
is it just me or have we gotten slightly off topic...
boris for pm!!!
if you don't fail, you aren't trying hard enough.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
boris from goldeneye? he was pretty cool
|
|
|
|
