UK. A 50-YEAR-OLD man has been gunned down outside a popular Brixton nightclub. [Archive]

UndercoverElephant

2nd April 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_objectid=14100791&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=shot-in-cold-blood-name_page.html

The gun ban isn't working. If this old man had shot back in self defense, the goverment would have had him (the victim) arrested.

They prefer you be helpless, and be gunned down in the street.

Please do not try to tell us how to run our country. We have a decriminalised society and a normally unarmed police force. You don't. Given the fact that there are over 1000 times more firearm homicides per head of population per year in the US, you are in no position to tell the UK that its system does not work.

Brixton is NOT a very good example of the situation in the UK anyway.

richardm

2nd April 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_objectid=14100791&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=shot-in-cold-blood-name_page.html

The gun ban isn't working. If this old man had shot back in self defense, the goverment would have had him (the victim) arrested.

They prefer you be helpless, and be gunned down in the street.

It's a shame really, they could have had an exciting shootout like in the Westerns. They were even sort of at a saloon, so they had the right place and everything.

BillyTK

2nd April 2004, 09:06 AM

I feel a strawman coming on:

People are still murdering, despite murder being a crime. The law's not working; better repeal it.

People are still robbing, despite robbery being a crime. The law's not working; better repeal it.

People are still commiting assault, despite assault being a crime. The law's not working; better repeal it.

(ad nauseum)

In fact, just about every law has been broken by someone (I admit, I'm a criminal! I've been lax in my longbow practice) so they're obviously not working, so let's repeal them all, just in case...

Tony

2nd April 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
I feel a strawman coming on:

The strawman is all yours:

People are still murdering, despite murder being a crime. The law's not working; better repeal it.

People are still robbing, despite robbery being a crime. The law's not working; better repeal it.

People are still commiting assault, despite assault being a crime. The law's not working; better repeal it.

All of those actions cause physical or financial harm to another individual, owning a gun does not. In fact, owning a gun is completely harmless.

Iconoclast

2nd April 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
The gun ban isn't working. If this old man had shot back in self defense, the goverment would have had him (the victim) arrested. There's a point that I don't think has been brought up yet, even after countless gun threads, and it's in regard to the fact that the UK and Australia have no real gun culture to speak of. If all the restaints on gun ownership in the UK were removed tomorrow, there would be no rush for the average joe to buy himself a gun, no interest. So, this guy would still not be carrying a gun when he was confronted by the baddie and he'd still be dead.

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_objectid=14100791&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=shot-in-cold-blood-name_page.html

The gun ban isn't working. If this old man had shot back in self defense, the goverment would have had him (the victim) arrested.

They prefer you be helpless, and be gunned down in the street.

Yes, I'd feel so much more comfortable outside a nightclub knowing that a group of drunken morons all had guns and could exercise their right to self defense with a good old fashioned shootout. :rolleyes:

Tony

2nd April 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Yes, I'd feel so much more comfortable outside a nightclub knowing that a group of drunken morons all had guns and could exercise their right to self defense with a good old fashioned shootout. :rolleyes:

This statement is a good example of the attitude I was talking about in my first post. It doesn't matter if the area outside club is safe, just that it feels safe. KevinG would rather NOT know that guns are there and believe that gun laws are working so he can feel safe. Do you care about feeling safe or being safe?

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 09:30 AM

epepke

2nd April 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Iconoclast
There's a point that I don't think has been brought up yet, even after countless gun threads, and it's in regard to the fact that the UK and Australia have no real gun culture to speak of.

Well, the UK does, sort of, but it's shotguns. That's why I could legally bring a shotgun into the UK if I wanted to do so.

Richard G

2nd April 2004, 09:31 AM

Yes, I'd feel so much more comfortable outside a nightclub knowing that a group of drunken morons all had guns and could exercise their right to self defense with a good old fashioned shootout.

There WERE morons outside the club with guns. The true crime here is your goverment will arrest YOU if the thugs shoot you, and you try to stop them.

Tony

2nd April 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

So what's the best solution to the problem here?

Who says there is a solution? People are individuals and will do what they want. The only solution that I can see would be more education.

We've had two shootings in the past year outside nightclubs hear in Vancouver where I believe 3 or 4 people were killed in total. If I had been there I don't think I would have felt better if I had a gun on me. I would have run for cover whether I had a gun or not.

That would have been my first reaction too.

I don't think easing up on gun laws is going to be beneficial in any way.

It's not going to be detremenal in anyway either. Instances like this are a social and cultural problem, not a legal problem.

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Who says there is a solution? People are individuals and will do what they want. The only solution that I can see would be more education.

OK, I like the sounds of that, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean?
Who needs to be educated and about what?

EvilYeti

2nd April 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Iconoclast
There's a point that I don't think has been brought up yet, even after countless gun threads, and it's in regard to the fact that the UK and Australia have no real gun culture to speak of.

Heh, maybe the slogan should be changed too "Guns don't kill people, gun NUTS kill people!".

I would be perfectly happy with ending all domestic gun control if every RichardG and Tony in America were locked away first.

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Tony

This statement is a good example of the attitude I was talking about in my first post. It doesn't matter if the area outside club is safe, just that it feels safe. KevinG would rather NOT know that guns are there and believe that gun laws are working so he can feel safe. Do you care about feeling safe or being safe?
Is it safer in Houston, Tony?

How about these articles from todays Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2481096)
A man found shot to death in his apartment near Reliant Stadium has been identified as Lionel Fastone Compton, 27.

Compton's sister found his body about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday in his apartment in the 2500 block of Westridge. The front door was partially open.

Police said there were no signs of a break-in. They believe the shooting occurred sometime after 2 p.m.

Witnesses saw a champagne-colored vehicle driving around the complex at 7 p.m. and said the driver appeared to be acting suspicious. The driver parked near Compton's apartment.
Oh, but that was probably a drug deal gone bad, so it doesn't count. Well how about this one?

A cafeteria manager has been charged with murder in the shooting of a neighbor killed in her bed by a stray bullet fired from outside her northwest Houston apartment.

Felipe Torres Cuevas, 28, is accused of slaying Edna Mike, 47, at her apartment at 4000 Watonga late Monday. Cuevas lives at the same complex, records show.

Mike's body was found the next day, when her husband returned from work. Police said Cuevas admitted shooting at a moving car in the parking lot after arguing with the driver. His bail was set at $20,000.
Oops. Didn't mean to hit the neighbor. I was shooting at someone I argued with.

But there aren't always deaths. Sometimes homeowners are successful in protecting their electrical boxes.
A Harris County sheriff's deputy shot at a minor who trespassed on his northwest Houston property and lunged at him, police said.

The boy, 16, will be charged with criminal trespass of a habitation, investigators said.

Deputy Stacey Small's wife awakened him about 11:20 p.m. Wednesday and told him someone was manipulating the electrical circuits outside their residence in the 8500 block of Scenic Green.

Small saw someone in his fenced back yard, grabbed his weapon, approached the trespasser and identified himself. The boy made a move toward Small's belt line, police said, and Small fired his gun. The boy fled, but Houston police found him.

Then there's just your plain old robbery.
A man shot to death at a southeast Houston shop Saturday has been identified as Mario Jesus Gomez, 33, of the 2300 block of Telephone.

Gomez was shot in the head after two unidentified men approached him and a business owner in the 2900 block of Golfcrest under the pretext of buying a boat, police said. Both men fled in a white pickup.

That's one day in one city in the US, and it was buried in the "Area Briefs" section. But when a gun murder happens in the UK, it is national news because it is so rare. This might explain why the British are not eager to embrace American gun laws. And of course, the personalities of the people on this forum who defend guns so rabidly do nothing to add allure to the wonderful concept of universal gun ownership.

Tony

2nd April 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Is it safer in Houston, Tony?

Why did you waste your time with that irrelevance? I never said Houston was safer...but wait, Houston is one of the safest cities in America. Pretty wierd considering our liberal gun laws. You would think LA or New York with their "progressive" gun laws would be safer than Houston.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/homerealestate/package.jsp?name=fte/bestqualityoflife/bestqualityoflife

Canadian cities are the safest in North America, due largely to strict law enforcement and low crime rates.
The safest U.S. cities are Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; and San Francisco, California

Charlie Monoxide

2nd April 2004, 11:21 AM

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Why did you waste your time with that irrelevance? I never said Houston was safer...but wait, Houston is one of the safest cities in America. Pretty wierd considering our liberal gun laws. You would think LA or New York with their "progressive" gun laws would be safer than Houston.
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/homerealestate/package.jsp?name=fte/bestqualityoflife/bestqualityoflife

It is extremely revelant. You and Richard seem to be implying that if UK citizens were allowed to carry guns like US citizens, they would be safer because they could defend themselves. I am showing that is not the case. That woman who was killed by the stray bullet would not have been made a single bit safer if she had been legally armed. She would be alive today if the person who accidentally shot her had not been legally armed. But then, that would mean that the shooter would have been deprived of his freedom to fire a gun at someone he had argued with.:rolleyes:

And I have to say that it is of minimal comfort to know that the obscene number of gun deaths in Houston is less than the obscene number of gun deaths in other US cities. Try comparing them to British cities.

Reginald

2nd April 2004, 11:24 AM

Tony

2nd April 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

You and Richard seem to be implying that if UK citizens were allowed to carry guns like US citizens, they would be safer because they could defend themselves.

Maybe Richard is, but I'm not. Perhaps you'd like to point out where I did?

And I have to say that it is of minimal comfort to know that the obscene number of gun deaths in Houston is less than the obscene number of gun deaths in other US cities.

"Gun-deaths" is a fabricated statistic invented by anti-gun fascists. It means nothing.

That said, why don't you go live in one of those “American” cities with the fascist gun laws? More gun laws=more safety right?

Try comparing them to British cities.

Why? It's an apple and oranges comparison.

Tony

2nd April 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Reginald

Well Brixton is one of the most dangerous places in our whole country and it STILL looks a lot safer than Houston.

There's that attitude again. As long as Brixton looks safer than Houston, it's ok. Actually being safer is irrelevant.

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Tony

That said, why don't you go live in one of those “American” cities with the fascist gun laws? More gun laws=more safety right?

But isn't there many cities in the world that have what you would call "fascist" gun laws that are safer than most if not all American cities.
Why aren't those cities bastions of gun death and violence.
Maybe their gun laws actually work!!

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Tony

There's that attitude again. As long as Brixton looks safer than Houston, it's ok. Actually being safer is irrelevant.

Tony, you'll have to explain this in more detail. What do you see as the difference between "looking" safe and "being" safe, and how does this relate to American and British cities in regards to gun laws?

Tony

2nd April 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Maybe their gun laws actually work!!

Or maybe there is a different social and cultural atmosphere?

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Or maybe there is a different social and cultural atmosphere?

How so, do you figure?

Tony

2nd April 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

How so, do you figure?

huh?

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Tony

huh?

Sorry if that seemed difficult to followed.

You said:

Or maybe there is a different social and cultural atmosphere?

Can you explain what you mean by this and how it relates to guns and gun laws?

Tony

2nd April 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Can you explain what you mean by this and how it relates to guns and gun laws?

I mean that there are different cultural and social factors at play in every country, which have different effects on the supposed success or failure of gun laws.

KelvinG

2nd April 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Tony

I mean that there are different cultural and social factors at play in every country, which have different effects on the supposed success or failure of gun laws.

So what exactly do you think can be done in the USA in a cultural and social sense that would curb the number of gun related crimes without changing gun laws?
Or, do you think gun laws have to be changed?

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Maybe Richard is, but I'm not. Perhaps you'd like to point out where I did?

How about here.
Originally posted by Tony
Do you care about feeling safe or being safe?
Now perhaps you are unaware of your implication. I am willing to believe that you don't really comprehend what you are saying, but to observant people, that would say that gun bans make you feel safe, where as free gun ownership makes you be safe. If that is not, what you meant, then pray tell us what you did mean.

Originally posted by Tony
"Gun-deaths" is a fabricated statistic invented by anti-gun fascists. It means nothing.
Yes. Those people aren't really dead. They fabricated their deaths to please fascists.

Besides, YOU are the one who brought up the statistics to prove how safe Houston is. Now you claim that those statistics are worthless? That can only meant that your point about Houston means nothing.
Originally posted by Tony
That said, why don't you go live in one of those “American” cities with the fascist gun laws? More gun laws=more safety right?
Please, Tony. Don't tell me you have gotten so desperate as to as to fall back on the old "if you don't like it, leave" aphorism. I prefer to try to change the laws I don't like. I'm not always successful, in fact, not often. That doesn't mean I cannot point out what I don't like about them. I try to do so without blubbering "fascist" every other sentence.

Originally posted by Tony
Why? It's an apple and oranges comparison.
This thread started by making an "apples and oranges comparison" between a situation in GB and one in the US. Now you whine because others have made the same comparison? Oh, I get it. It's only fair if it supports your side.

You're doing well, Tony. You have contradicted yourself on every point so far.

Tony

2nd April 2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

So what exactly do you think can be done in the USA in a cultural and social sense that would curb the number of gun related crimes without changing gun laws?

Ending the incentive for crime in the first place. Take the drug trade out of the hands of gangstas and gansters would be a good starting point. We've all seen, ad nausium, the anti-drug driving, anti-smoking, anti-drug, anti-AIDS, anti-meat ect. campaigns. Why not have something POSITIVE for a change, how about a "Be nice to your fellow man (and woman) campaign"? That's just an idea.

Reginald

2nd April 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Tony

There's that attitude again. As long as Brixton looks safer than Houston, it's ok. Actually being safer is irrelevant.

Well quite often when a thing looks safer, it is. I did say looks safer, and I will consider that it is safer until you can provide me with some reason why it isnt. I certainly don't get the impression that gun crime is the "norm" there. Don't try to extend your own nervousness about the world around you to me please. I am not wrong to assume that the people down any high street in this country are not armed, it's a perfectly reasonable position to take statistically, or indeed that they are planning to commit a crime with a gun. That's the nice thing about here. Guns are still a rarity despite your paranoia by proxy.

Tony

2nd April 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Now perhaps you are unaware of your implication. I am willing to believe that you don't really comprehend what you are saying, but to observant people, that would say that gun bans make you feel safe, where as free gun ownership makes you be safe. If that is not, what you meant, then pray tell us what you did mean.

I didn't mean anything, I was asking a question. A question into which you apparently read your own biases.

Yes. Those people aren't really dead. They fabricated their deaths to please fascists.

Strawman.

Besides, YOU are the one who brought up the statistics to prove how safe Houston is.

No I didn't, you started spamming the thread to show how dangerous Houston was. I proved you wrong by showing that Houston, despite our liberal gun laws, is one of the safest cities in Amerca.

Now you claim that those statistics are worthless? That can only meant that your point about Houston means nothing.

I never brought up any statistics on "gun deaths", you are hallucinating.

I prefer to try to change the laws I don't like.

No, you prefer to shove your morals down everyone's throat. Outlawing guns is not "changing laws", it is imposing tyranny.

This thread started by making an "apples and oranges comparison" between a situation in GB and one in the US.

It was? Look again, this thread was started by showing how gun laws in the UK aren't effective at ending "gun crime".

Now you whine because others have made the same comparison? Oh, I get it. It's only fair if it supports your side.

You need to stop using this tactic, it is transparent and lame.

You're doing well, Tony. You have contradicted yourself on every point so far.

Not really, you've just strawmanized or perverted pretty much everything I said.

Richard G

2nd April 2004, 12:40 PM

Heres another one:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/post-reply-top.tcl?refers_to=00AYim

South London Press
DETECTIVES have released CCTV images of two suspects wanted for questioning in connection with a violent robbery on a 74-year-old woman.
Mary Hammond was left with a fractured pelvis and broken elbow when two teenagers forced their way into her home in Wimbourne House, Dorset Road, Clapham, at around 9.30am on Monday, February 10.

This old women could have easily fended off these attackers with a pistol. But if she did, your goverment would arrest her. Self defense is a human right. But it is criminalized in England.

(Niether the police, or the CCTV prevented her from being victimized. A firearm in her hand would have).

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 12:48 PM

Hey dicky are you gonna own up to the article you posted here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38182) as being unmitigated garbage, or are you going to post yet more garbage in this thread, in the hope that no-one notices all the garbage you posted in the other thread?

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Tony
It's obvious that people in the UK have no real interest in ending so-called "gun crime". All they are interested in is the appearance of ending "gun crime". That's what purpose gun laws serve. The laws give politicians something to appease anti-gun fascists while they (the politicians) can claim that they are tough on "gun crime". The laws also provide the appearance to the people that something is being done about "gun crime", freedoms and civil rights be damned.

You cannot take away a "freedom" or a "right" you have never had. Have you even read the 1689 Bill of Rights?

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Tony
I didn't mean anything, I was asking a question. A question which you apparently read your own biases into.
(sigh) I'm sorry I have to shove your own words down your throat, Tony, but since you won't have it any other way:

Originally posted by Tony
It's obvious that people in the UK have no real interest in ending so-called "gun crime". All they are interested in is the appearance of ending "gun crime.
Yo are saying that UK gun laws do not make people safe, but only make them feel safe. That is not a question. That is a statement. It is your statement. Be a man and acknowledge your own words.

Originally posted by Tony
Strawman.

Nope. You said the statistics weren't real (while throwing out the "Fascist" word again.) Now you may argue what the statistics mean, but you unless you can show that they are actually making up the data, then you can't argue that they aren't real.

Originally posted by Tony
No I didn't, you started spamming the thread to show how dangerous Houston was. I proved you wrong by showing that Houston, despite our liberal gun laws, is one of the safest cities in Amerca.

I never brought up any statistics on "gun deaths", you are hallucinating.
I did not spam the thread. I cited news articles, just like the originator of the thread. Complain to Richard if you don't like the tactics employed in this thread.

And you linked a site that used statistics to show Houston is safe. Yes, Tony. YOU brought up statistics. Be a man and admit it.

Originally posted by Tony
No, you prefer to shove your morals down everyone's throat. Outlawing guns is not "changing laws", it is imposing tyranny.
How is working through our legal system to change laws that I don't agree with equate to tyranny? You should do the same thing. It works better and is less dangerous than simply breaking the laws you don't like.

Originally posted by Tony
It was? Look again, this thread was started by showing how gun laws in the UK aren't effective at ending "gun crime".
You are never going to "end" gun crime. You can reduce it though. Numerous people here have shown that UK laws are better at reducing gun crime than US laws.

You seem to think that because the rate of gun crimes is not decreasing in England that their laws are failing. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say that there are two platoons and in one platoon, ten soldiers a day are dying. In the other platoon, two soldiers a day are dying. Now let's say that something happens to the first platoon so that only 8 people a day are dying. Which platoon would you rather be in?

Originally posted by Tony
You need to stop using this tactic, it is transparent and lame.

You need to try to find some other words besides "fascist" and "tyranny". You also need to stand behind the things you say and not pretend you didn't really say them. If I use "transparent and lame" sarcasm to point these things out it is because they are the only tools that seem to work on you.

Originally posted by Tony
Not really, you've just strawmanized or perverted pretty much everything I said.
You seem to be able to do that without my help.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 12:56 PM

Richard G

2nd April 2004, 01:02 PM

Human rights are not dependent upon some "bill". They are basic, human rights, like eating, breathing, and sleeping. The right to do those things are not given to anyone by goverment, they just exist.

The right to defend your life is a basic human right. If you pick up a stick to beat my head in, I have a right to pick up a stick to stop you.

There are guns in Britain, we can agree on that can't we? And they are being used to commit crime.

When you become the victim of a thug with a gun, the only effective way to deal with that is to have your own gun. Your goverment has made it illegal for you to defend you own life.

Whats even sadder, is most of you Brits don't seem to care.

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Heres another one:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/post-reply-top.tcl?refers_to=00AYim

This old women could have easily fended off these attackers with a pistol. But if she did, your goverment would arrest her. Self defense is a human right. But it is criminalized in England.

(Niether the police, or the CCTV prevented her from being victimized. A firearm in her hand would have).
Now that's truly laughable, Richard. Do you seriously think a 74 year old woman could get the jump on two much younger attackers who surprised her? (It is obvious they surprised her, because she opened the door to them). Do you think she should keep her gun drawn every time she answers the door?

If she had been packing heat, that would just be one more gun in the hands of criminals, and perhaps their next victim would have a bullet hole in them rather than a broken pelvis.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Human rights are not dependent upon some "bill". They are basic, human rights, like eating, breathing, and sleeping. The right to do those things are not given to anyone by goverment, they just exist.

The right to defend your life is a basic human right. If you pick up a stick to beat my head in, I have a right to pick up a stick to stop you.

There are guns in Britain, we can agree on that can't we? And they are being used to commit crime.

When you become the victim of a thug with a gun, the only effective way to deal with that is to have your own gun. Your goverment has made it illegal for you to defend you own life.

Whats even sadder, is most of you Brits don't seem to care.

The right to self defence has been established for well over 800 years. It is a basic human right.

Owning a manufactured object is not a human right. You can disagree with this if you want, but the history, laws and institutions of this country back up this view.

I have never denied there are guns in Britian. What I have denied is that letting any tom, dick or harry have any weapon they want will make Britian safer. It won't.

Now are you going to admit the article you posted previously is bunk or are you just going to ignore huge factual errors as usual?

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

There are guns in Britain, we can agree on that can't we? And they are being used to commit crime.
Whats even sadder, is most of you Brits don't seem to care.

The IRA have semtex. They have committed crimes with it, killing hundreds, if not thousands of people with it.

Do I get to have semtex too?

Your last point is frankly laughable..........

Charlie Monoxide

2nd April 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Human rights are not dependent upon some "bill". They are basic, human rights, like eating, breathing, and sleeping. The right to do those things are not given to anyone by goverment, they just exist.

The right to defend your life is a basic human right. If you pick up a stick to beat my head in, I have a right to pick up a stick to stop you.

There are guns in Britain, we can agree on that can't we? And they are being used to commit crime.

When you become the victim of a thug with a gun, the only effective way to deal with that is to have your own gun. Your goverment has made it illegal for you to defend you own life.

Whats even sadder, is most of you Brits don't seem to care.

I'm having trouble as to why you insist on "evangelizing" gun ownership in England. Do you have a lot of shares in Smith & Wesson or Colt?

It seems every day I read my local newspaper (Dallas), there's some shooting or killing that occurred that involves firearms. When I was in Houston I read on at least 2 occasions when children died from playing with (presumably) their parents legal guns.

The gun deaths you quote from England are far and few between.

There is something wrong with the proliferation of guns in the US as seen in the vast number of gun deaths.

Charlie (rolling up sleeves to bare arms) Monoxide

Tony

2nd April 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

(sigh) I'm sorry I have to shove your own words down your throat, Tony, but since you won't have it any other way:

Yo are saying that UK gun laws do not make people safe, but only make them feel safe. That is not a question. That is a statement. It is your statement. Be a man and acknowledge your own words.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty, holy *****. That first question you quoted me as saying and this second quote are from two different threads, one of which was directed at a specific person. I guess you'll do anything to show you have a point to make.

Nope. You said the statistics weren't real (while throwing out the "Fascist" word again.) Now you may argue what the statistics mean, but you unless you can show that they are actually making up the data, then you can't argue that they aren't real.

You are misunderstanding me, I never said the deaths were fake, but that the "gun deaths" statistic was.

And you linked a site that used statistics to show Houston is safe. Yes, Tony. YOU brought up statistics. Be a man and admit it.

Read again. I NEVER brough up statistics on "gun deaths".

How is working through our legal system to change laws that I don't agree with equate to tyranny?

You aren't "working through our legal system to change a law you don't agree with". That's your spin. You are working within our legal system to deny people constitutional rights because you feel like they shouldn't have them. And yes, arbitrarily taking rights away is tyranny.

You should do the same thing.

You mean I should campaign and advocate for the revoking of someone’s rights because I don't think they should have them?

Sorry, I'm not a fascist. I campaign and advocate FOR people's rights, not against them.

You are never going to "end" gun crime. You can reduce it though. Numerous people here have shown that UK laws are better at reducing gun crime than US laws.

That's pointless. You STILL have "gun crimes" and deaths AND you have less freedom. Sorry, not good enough.

Let's say that there are two platoons and in one platoon, ten soldiers a day are dying. In the other platoon, two soldiers a day are dying. Now let's say that something happens to the first platoon so that only 8 people a day are dying. Which platoon would you rather be in?

False analogy. The soldiers in BOTH platoons still have the same amount of freedoms.

You seem to be able to do that without my help.

So you admit to purposefully perverting my points? I’m glad that's outta the way.

Tony

2nd April 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

You cannot take away a "freedom" or a "right" you have never had.

Your mind is truly enslaved if you think mommy gubmint where you get your rights.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Your mind is truly enslaved if you think mommy gubmint where you get your rights.

No sonny jim, it comes FROM THE PEOPLE. I know you hate democracy, but we find it works rather well..

Get used to it....

Tony

2nd April 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

No sonny jim, it comes FROM THE PEOPLE. I know you hate democracy, but we find it works rather well..

So you advocate tyranny by majority?

No, it is YOU who hate, not just democracy, but human, civil and minority rights.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Tony

So you advocate tyranny by majority? No, it is YOU who hate not just democracy, but human, civil and minority rights.

Round and around we go...........

Self defence is a human right. Owning a manufactured object is not a human right. Clearly established in law for hundreds of years.........

I have a terrible feeling of deja vu...........

Tony

2nd April 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

Self defence is a human right. Owning a manufactured object is not a human right. Clearly established in law for hundreds of years.........

I'll take your non-answer as a yes that you advocate tyranny by majority.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 01:49 PM

Incidentally, if you beleive that we have a "fascist" government, determined to end our "human right" to have guns, can you tell me why there are 51,778 shotgun certificates on issue in Scotland alone?

Reginald

2nd April 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Now that's truly laughable, Richard. Do you seriously think a 74 year old woman could get the jump on two much younger attackers who surprised her? (It is obvious they surprised her, because she opened the door to them). Do you think she should keep her gun drawn every time she answers the door?

If she had been packing heat, that would just be one more gun in the hands of criminals, and perhaps their next victim would have a bullet hole in them rather than a broken pelvis.

Had she been able to overpower or outgun her two, young, healthy and fit assailants with a firearm then Richard had better be afraid of any old lady assailants he may come across. By Richard's own argument they must be bloody lethal and capable of winning.

Tony

2nd April 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Incidentally, if you beleive that we have a "fascist" government, determined to end our "human right" to have guns, can you tell me why there are 51,778 shotgun certificates on issue in Scotland alone?

Maybe because a psycho hasn't used a shotgun to killed a bunch of little kids at a school?

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Tony

I'll take your non-answer as a yes that you advocate tyranny by majority.

No, it's a classic false dilemma. I believe in democracy. i beleive that means you may have to put up with things you don't like. And you are perfectly free to work to reverse those things you don't like, through the ballot box. And the history of my country shows it works. If the law was changed to allow currently proscribed guns I would have to put up with it. But I would work to change it. That is not tyranny. Tyranny is having no recourse to change anything. A very important difference.

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
No sonny jim, it comes FROM THE PEOPLE. I know you hate democracy, but we find it works rather well..

Get used to it....
Forget it, Shaun. Tony does not understand democracy or representative government. The only things he understands are his wants (which he calls "rights"). He can't seem to grasp that rights come from the government and government comes from the people. He doesn't seem to realize that the US Constitution is a government document. The concept that different peoples "rights" might actually contradict each other and need official judgment is completely beyond his limited powers of comprehension.

I usually don't bother to try to educated him, since apparently all the schools (to Houston's great shame) have failed to install even the most rudimentary knowledge of how government works, but every now and then I'll spare him a few moments time. I know it is wasted on him, but perhaps others may be able to see my points. He will continue to wallow in his little anarchist fantasy world.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Maybe because a psycho hasn't used a shotgun to killed a bunch of little kids at a school?

No Tony, all gun owners are evil. We, the fascist British Government want to persecute them. Why dont we get rid of them all in one fell swoop and then carry our swatikas down the Strand?

Well, that's what you believe isn't it??

Tony

2nd April 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

And you are perfectly free to work to reverse those things you don't like, through the ballot box. that is not tyranny. Tyranny is having no recourse to change anything. A very important difference.

But if rights are granted by the people ("democracy"), then the minority, simply by being the minority, has no recourse to change the things the majority imposes on them. That's tyranny of the majority, something you apparently support.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Tony

But if rights are granted by the people ("democracy"), then the minority, simply by being the minority, has no recourse to change the things the majority imposes on them. That's tyranny of the majority, something you apparently support.

It's called presenting your case. It's called arguing what you believe in. It's called trying to convince people through reasoned, rational debate.

PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

We didn't used to let women vote. That was seen as pefectly reasonable. WOMEN CHANGED PEOPLES PERCEPTIONS!!

See, it works...........

Shane Costello

2nd April 2004, 02:07 PM

I'm a tad confused, so maybe someone might enlighten me.

Why should anyone in the US care or lose sleep over gun laws in the UK?

charley_bigtime

2nd April 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Maybe because a psycho hasn't used a shotgun to killed a bunch of little kids at a school?

Ah - so the kids should've been armed then?

:rolleyes:

Tony

2nd April 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

It's called presenting your case. It's called arguing what you believe in. It's called trying to convince people through reasoned, rational debate.

It's called tyranny of the majority. None of that should have to happen in a free society, people should have freedom as a principal, NOT because the minority became the majority.

charley_bigtime

2nd April 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I'm a tad confused, so maybe someone might enlighten me.

Why should anyone in the US care or lose sleep over gun laws in the UK?

You know - I'm confused by this too. I've read hundreds of these threads dotted all over the place and would love to know why.

Care to enlighten me/us?

Tony

2nd April 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

Ah - so the kids should've been armed then?

:rolleyes:

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

But im sure you think you've made a brilliant observation.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Tony

It's called tyranny of the majority. None of that should have to happen in a free society, people should have freedom as a principal, NOT because the minority became the majority.

But we do have freedom as a principal. Its called democracy.........round and around we go again.........

Tricky i think i will take your advice........

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

But im sure you think you've made a brilliant observation.

Why not? They are humans too dont they have rights as well?

Darat

2nd April 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Incidentally, if you beleive that we have a "fascist" government, determined to end our "human right" to have guns, can you tell me why there are 51,778 shotgun certificates on issue in Scotland alone?

The last figures I looked up for England and Wales showed that there were just over 3,200,000 legally held firearms. That would be enough for approximatley one firearm for every 20 people (including children).

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

Why not? They are humans too dont they have rights as well?

dammit couldn't resist it.......

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I'm a tad confused, so maybe someone might enlighten me.

Why should anyone in the US care or lose sleep over gun laws in the UK?

A good question.

charley_bigtime

2nd April 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Tony

But im sure you think you've made a brilliant observation.

No - I *know* I did.

charley_bigtime

2nd April 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Darat

The last figures I looked up for England and Wales showed that there were just over 3,200,000 legally held firearms. That would be enough for approximatley one firearm for every 20 people (including children).

Hmmm...very facist.

Darat

2nd April 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

Hmmm...very facist.

Well I couldn't find any figures for surface-to-air missiles so I am assuming we have fascist laws against legal ownership of those as well!

(Edited to add.)

And you may be amazed to learn that we have fascist laws that mean I can't blow my postman's hand off when he is putting letters through my letter box, even though I haven't given him permission to do so!

Shane Costello

2nd April 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Darat:
And you may be amazed to learn that we have fascist laws that mean I can't blow my postman's hand off when he is putting letters through my letter box, even though I haven't given him permission to do so!

But where does the law stand if your Jack Russell takes a lump out of his calf? (This is a serious question).

charley_bigtime

2nd April 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

But where does the law stand if your Jack Russell takes a lump out of his calf? (This is a serious question).

If a postman is stupid enough to carry a small cow everywhere on his round then he deserves all he gets.

Shane Costello

2nd April 2004, 03:13 PM

How do you know it wasn't a bull calf?

Darat

2nd April 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

But where does the law stand if your Jack Russell takes a lump out of his calf? (This is a serious question).

http://money.guardian.co.uk/insurance_/story/0,1456,944095,00.html

It looks as if the owner is responsible (it is accepted that we do in fact "invite the postman in" because of accepting the postage service).

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

But where does the law stand if your Jack Russell takes a lump out of his calf? (This is a serious question).

The postie has the right to shoot the owner because his dog is infringing on his right to post letters

Richard G

2nd April 2004, 03:19 PM

He can't seem to grasp that rights come from the government and government comes from the people. He doesn't seem to realize that the US Constitution is a government document :jaw:

This is why we threw the English out of the Colonies. If they are all of this like mind, I would gladly participate in doing it again.

Rights do not come from goverments. Rights do not come from people. Rights are inherent to each individual, seperate from goverment or other people. Our founders believed they are from the Creator.

The U.S. Constitution is a document from the people, telling the goverment what it cannot do. It cannot take away inherent, God given rights. And niether can "the People".

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
:jaw:

This is why we threw the English out of the Colonies. If they are all of this like mind, I would gladly participate in doing it again.

Rights do not come from goverments. Rights do not come from people. Rights are inherent to each individual, seperate from goverment or other people. Our founders believed they are from the Creator.

The U.S. Constitution is a document from the people, telling the goverment what it cannot do. It cannot take away inherent, God given rights. And niether can "the People".

Never mind that, are you going to admit the article you posted stating there is a total gun ban in the uk etc etc is bunk or are you going to pretend your factual innacuracies don't exist?

Again.............

Darat

2nd April 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

This is why we threw the English out of the Colonies. Rights do not come from goverments. Rights do not come from people. Rights are inherent to each individual, seperate from goverment or other people. Our founders believed they are from the Creator.

The U.S. Constitution is a document from the people, telling the goverment what it cannot do. It cannot take away inherent, God given rights. And niether can "the People".

All hail the constitution! Remind me when did God come down and write it? (Edited to add.)

Didn't you have slavery when it was drawn up? Pity that the slaves didn’t have the same "inherent, God given rights" as the rest of the population... Mind you it only took around another 180 years before that little "oversight" was totally corrected...

Face it if the majority want it enough then they will change whatever they want no matter what any piece of paper says.

charley_bigtime

2nd April 2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

Never mind that, are you going to admit the article you posted stating there is a total gun ban in the uk etc etc is bunk or are you going to pretend your factual innacuracies don't exist?

Again.............

I hope you're not holding your breath.

Shaun from Scotland

2nd April 2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

I hope you're not holding your breath.

He came, he posted, he was wrong, he ignored it, he went away again, he came back and pretended nothing had happened........repeat ad nauseum.......

(turning blue here............)

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

This is why we threw the English out of the Colonies. If they are all of this like mind, I would gladly participate in doing it again.

Um... we didn't throw the English out of the Colonies. Many of them stayed here. Your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of government.

Originally posted by Richard G
Rights do not come from goverments. Rights do not come from people. Rights are inherent to each individual, seperate from goverment or other people. Our founders believed they are from the Creator.
So that "Bill of Rights" thingie. That's just some loose guidelines with no legal status? The Declaration of Independance (which has no legal status in our government) listed only three "inalienable rights" that our creator endowed us with. The Constitution defines what "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" entail.

Originally posted by Richard G
The U.S. Constitution is a document from the people, telling the goverment what it cannot do. It cannot take away inherent, God given rights. And niether can "the People".
It also tells us what those rights are, along with the other laws of national, state and local government. Your CITY may tell you that you don't have the right to carry a gun into a drinking establisment. Instead, they may assert the rights of people to go to gun-free bars. You, as an individual, do not get to decide on what rights you have. You can decide what rights you ought to have, then work through legal channels and the ballot box to make them part of the laws.

Or don't you belive we should have some laws?

Darat

2nd April 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Um... we didn't throw the English out of the Colonies. Many of them stayed here. Your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of government.

...snip...

And don't forget that it was a Great British civil war. ;)

Tricky

2nd April 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Darat
And don't forget that it was a Great British civil war. ;)
LOL. That's true. To them, we were just a bunch of British subjects that were revolting.:p

Camillus

3rd April 2004, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

There WERE morons outside the club with guns. The true crime here is your goverment will arrest YOU if the thugs shoot you, and you try to stop them.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting:

That it is illegal for a person in the UK to take any action to defend themselves from attack?
Or are you simply implying that lack of handgun ownership effectively makes it impossible someone to defend themselves?

Cheers

richardm

3rd April 2004, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Camillus

That it is illegal for a person in the UK to take any action to defend themselves from attack?

RichardG and others have picked up on a few news stories from the UK where people have shot or stabbed other people to death. They entered a "Self defence" plea, but because the injuries were in the back of the victim, and often involved multiple injuries, this was rejected.

RichardG has extrapolated from this, and wrongly decided that you have no right to self-defence in the UK.

Or are you simply implying that lack of handgun ownership effectively makes it impossible someone to defend themselves?

Basically. If you have a gun on your person, you feel a lot safer, apparently. Nobody will rob or attack you because they will be afraid that you have a gun too. This is why there is no crime in Houston.

The UK has a ban on handguns, consequently we are living under a tyrannical fascist regime.

It's quite funny, really.

Shaun from Scotland

3rd April 2004, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by richardm

The UK has a ban on handguns, consequently we are living under a tyrannical fascist regime.

It's quite funny, really.

No, no RichardM, Dicky boy believes we have a total gun ban. The fact this is not the case is something Dick boy will not own up to. He will continue to post half baked nonsense in the hope no one will notice.

We have no right to self defence, even though I have posted numerous links to stories showing precisely that.

You are perfectly correct however, in noting that it is utterly hilarious.

UndercoverElephant

3rd April 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Um... we didn't throw the English out of the Colonies. Many of them stayed here. Your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of government.

Do you think we should tell him that the British would never have been thrown out if it wasn't for the French? :D

charley_bigtime

3rd April 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Do you think we should tell him that the British would never have been thrown out if it wasn't for the French? :D

I dunno, we probably only stayed there as long as we did because of our German Mercenaries and Native American assistance.

:p

billydkid

3rd April 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

I just don't believe that you solve the problem by opening the floodgates.

Ah yes, the flood gates- law abiding citizens having the right to own firearms. Naturally, making firearm ownership lawful will turn all the law abiding citizen into maniacal sociopaths.

Shaun from Scotland

3rd April 2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

Ah yes, the flood gates- law abiding citizens having the right to own firearms. Naturally, making firearm ownership lawful will turn all the law abiding citizen into maniacal sociopaths.

Law-abiding citizens are perfectly able to own firearms if they so wish. Not all kinds, but as has been pointed out before, there are over 3 million firearms certificates on issue.

And as has been also pointed out before, there is no "right" to bear arms in the UK. It has always been subject to the rule of law. Go and have a look at the 1689 Bill of Rights if you don't believe me.

As for your last point, who has ever said that the 1997 FAA will stop guncrime totally? We passed laws against murder, but do you think we sit around and think "Well, that's the murder problem solved then"??

Strawman methinks........

billydkid

3rd April 2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

.....who has ever said that the 1997 FAA will stop guncrime totally? We passed laws against murder, but do you think we sit around and think "Well, that's the murder problem solved then"??

Strawman methinks........

Yes, but is there any reason to suppose it stops gun crime at all or any plausible rationale behind the premise that it could? And there is a fundamental difference between a law which punishes transgressions one person against another and prior restraint type laws against possession. Again, anyone inclined to assault another person with a firearm or with any other weapon is not going to be inhibited by laws against possession.

charley_bigtime

3rd April 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

Yes, but is there any reason to suppose it stops gun crime at all or any plausible rationale behind the premise that it could? And there is a fundamental difference between a law which punishes transgressions one person against another and prior restraint type laws against possession. Again, anyone inclined to assault another person with a firearm or with any other weapon is not going to be inhibited by laws against possession.

The gun ban was a bit of a Knee jerk reaction admittedly.

Regardless of that. The British public do not want guns to be freely available. The murder figures - firearm and overall - compared between the US and the UK say that the citizens of the UK are safer (currently) as a result.

Not having a pop at the US you understand, you do what you gotta do and we'll do our own thang too. Just let us get on with our knitting and chuckle at our perceived lack of freedom from afar without repeatedly ramming it down our necks.

Because you're not going to change anything to be honest.

Cheers.

epepke

4th April 2004, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime
Regardless of that. The British public do not want guns to be freely available. The murder figures - firearm and overall - compared between the US and the UK say that the citizens of the UK are safer (currently) as a result.

Not having a pop at the US you understand, you do what you gotta do and we'll do our own thang too. Just let us get on with our knitting and chuckle at our perceived lack of freedom from afar without repeatedly ramming it down our necks.

Because you're not going to change anything to be honest.

Presented with humor and aplomb. I like it. I hope to see issues dealt with more like this, and I'll try to support it in the future.

One thing that needs to be pointed out, though, with respect to the US and firearms, it would be practically impossible to get firearms out of the hands of US citizens anyway. The country is simply too big and too rural for this even to be considered.

The UK has had a long-standing tradition against sidearms. It's confined to a fairly small island. It's, well, insular. At some point in the future, the UK may become a hotbed of firearm violence, but not yet.

As far as murders go, a big chunk of that is due to the draconian nature of US drug laws. A fair amount of it is also left over from the earlier experiments of the US with alcohol prohibition.

Shaun from Scotland

4th April 2004, 01:37 AM

Iconoclast

4th April 2004, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by epepke
The UK has had a long-standing tradition against sidearms. It's confined to a fairly small island. It's, well, insular.Oh my! A USA'n calling a European country insular, that's hilarious. I'd tell you it was the most ironic thing I'd heard all week, but you're from America, so irony goes straight over your head too.

billydkid

4th April 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

The gun ban was a bit of a Knee jerk reaction admittedly.

Regardless of that. The British public do not want guns to be freely available. The murder figures - firearm and overall - compared between the US and the UK say that the citizens of the UK are safer (currently) as a result.

Not having a pop at the US you understand, you do what you gotta do and we'll do our own thang too. Just let us get on with our knitting and chuckle at our perceived lack of freedom from afar without repeatedly ramming it down our necks.

Because you're not going to change anything to be honest.

Cheers.

I sure wasn't arguing that the UK should be like the US. The USA has all sorts of restrictions on firearms, depending on where you live, that I also disagree with. I was just arguing about the reasoning and general principles involved behind laws against possession. I have no interest in telling the Brits how to run there own country. I have found, in my own country and I'm sure that this is pretty much applicable all over the world, that the logic invariably goes like this - if an approach is not working, we must need to do even more of it. The thought is never that the approach itself must be wrong. This has been especially true of the "war" on drugs. It is very hard for people to admit they may be fundamentally wrong when they have so much invested (emotional and otherwise) in an idea.

Shane Costello

4th April 2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Iconoclast:
Oh my! A USA'n calling a European country insular, that's hilarious.

In fairness there is "Little Englander" syndrome.

Originally posted by charley_bigtime:
Regardless of that. The British public do not want guns to be freely available. The murder figures - firearm and overall - compared between the US and the UK say that the citizens of the UK are safer (currently) as a result.

Exactly. People in the UK are happy with their current gun laws, so I'm stumped as to why anyone in the US, or anywhere else for that matter would get so preoccupied with them. The whole gun-control bias is largely cultural IMO, boiling down to whether you feel safer in a society where gun ownership is restricted, or whether you feel safer with your own firepower. Both sides can marshall stats to their case. You could point out that the UK does indeed have a lower homicide rate than the UK, or you could point out that US states with a similar demographic and ethnic makeup to the UK are much safer and have a high rate of gun ownership.

Can't everyone just agree to disagree and find something better to gripe about?

Shaun from Scotland

4th April 2004, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by billydkid

I have found, in my own country and I'm sure that this is pretty much applicable all over the world, that the logic invariably goes like this - if an approach is not working, we must need to do even more of it. The thought is never that the approach itself must be wrong. This has been especially true of the "war" on drugs. It is very hard for people to admit they may be fundamentally wrong when they have so much invested (emotional and otherwise) in an idea.

Well, when the guncime figures start going back to their pre 1997 FAA rates, your criticism may be valid. However, as the Act is manifestly working, and working very well, in Scotland, forgive us if we put peoples lives before a few peoples selfish interests.

Oh, and be in perfect accordance with the 1689 Bill of Rights at the same time.........

Shaun from Scotland

4th April 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Can't everyone just agree to disagree and find something better to gripe about?

As long as Dicky boy and his ilk keep posting BS about the gun laws over here, I'll keep slapping them down..........

Shane Costello

4th April 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland:
As long as Dicky boy and his ilk keep posting BS about the gun laws over here, I'll keep slapping them down..........

Lest you form the opinion that I think one of you is worse than the other I'm still waiting to hear why they should care about gun laws in the UK.

Until then keep slapping down with my blessing.

Darat

4th April 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

The gun ban was a bit of a Knee jerk reaction admittedly.

...snip...

And something I've said before.

The latest gun control laws in the UK reduced the total of legally owned guns by 160,000. (To approximately 3,200,000 and the total number of gun owners the legislation effected was between 50,000-60,000 out of a population of 60,000,000.)

In England and Wales it has been illegal for any citizen to carry a loaded, handgun on their person in a public place for decades!

There seems to be a profound misconception (particularly from the USA posters) that before the 98 legislation citizens of the UK could legally carry a loaded handgun in public.

The conditions in England & Wales prior to 1998 were that handguns could only be used in licensed premises (e.g. gun clubs). Hand guns stored at home had to be unloaded, locked away in an "approved" manner and the ammunition stored separately.

Before and after the 1998 act there was no legal handguns carried by people, no legal handguns kept in cars, no legal handguns in a bedside cabinet, no legal handguns in a corner shop and no legal handguns in a set of golf clubs.

And just to labour the point:

In 1977 there were 0, zero citizens armed with loaded handguns walking on the streets of England and Wales.

In 1987 there were 0, zero citizens armed with loaded handguns walking on the streets of England and Wales.

In 1997 there were 0, zero citizens armed with loaded handguns walking on the streets of England and Wales.

In 1998 there were 0, zero citizens armed with loaded handguns walking on the streets of England and Wales.

In 2000 there were 0, zero citizens armed with loaded handguns walking on the streets of England and Wales.

In 2003 there were 0, zero citizens armed with loaded handguns walking on the streets of England and Wales.

epepke

5th April 2004, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Oh my! A USA'n calling a European country insular, that's hilarious. I'd tell you it was the most ironic thing I'd heard all week, but you're from America, so irony goes straight over your head too.

I'm afraid the irony is lost on you, sir. The "well" is a clue. Perhaps it is not enough of a cricket bat at the head for you. I will try to write clearly and unambiguously and spell it out.

To say that the UK is insular is to say that it is an island. An island is a bunch of dirt with water around it. Got it?

Effectively, the only ways of running guns into the UK are via boats, airplanes, or trains. All of which are fairly easy to control.

With me so far?

Whereas the US has very large land borders with two countries. One of them has way more guns than we do. The other one doesn't have many guns but a legal system that permits shady deals for a price.

Still with me?

Therefore, due to the fact of the US not being an island, as opposed to the UK, there exist many land routes for running guns into the US, also as opposed to the UK. There is just no way that these land routes can be adequately patrolled. Therefore, there exists no practicable way to keep guns out of the US, no matter what any part of the US government does.

Iconoclast

5th April 2004, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by epepke
I'm afraid the irony is lost on you, sir. The "well" is a clue.I take it that you were just validating my point about Americans and irony with that post?

epepke

5th April 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Iconoclast
I take it that you were just validating my point about Americans and irony with that post?

Yes, you certainly do?

Graham

5th April 2004, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by epepke

Whereas the US has very large land borders with two countries. One of them has way more guns than we do. The other one doesn't have many guns but a legal system that permits shady deals for a price.

Just out of interest, which is which?

Graham

charley_bigtime

9th April 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Presented with humor and aplomb. I like it. I hope to see issues dealt with more like this, and I'll try to support it in the future.

Err...thanks. (I think :p )

Shaun from Scotland

9th April 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by epepke

To say that the UK is insular is to say that it is an island. An island is a bunch of dirt with water around it. Got it?

Effectively, the only ways of running guns into the UK are via boats, airplanes, or trains. All of which are fairly easy to control.

The control of the UK's coastline is far from easy. It's a small country in terms of land area (its slightly smaller than Oregon). But we have a hell of a lot of coastline to defend.

12,429 km worth (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html)

The USA, a country which dwarves the UK in terms of land area has 19, 924 km worth (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

Now, add huge reductions in frontline Customs and Excise frontline strength, the smallest Navy we have had in about 400 years, and you see the problem..........

charley_bigtime

9th April 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

12,429 km worth (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html)

>This entry gives the total length of the boundary between the land area (including islands) and the sea.

I hardly think that Rockall can be described as a hotbed of international arms dealing - can you?

:p

Shaun from Scotland

10th April 2004, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

>This entry gives the total length of the boundary between the land area (including islands) and the sea.

I hardly think that Rockall can be described as a hotbed of international arms dealing - can you?

:p

No but the Scottish Western Isles and other islands, which is the main reason we have such a large area of coastline, is one of the main entry points for guns, drugs and other contraband. The IRA knew that very well.

And when you have a pathetic Customs and Excise service (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13232979_method=full_siteid=89488 _headline=-AN-OPEN-AND-SHUT-CASE-FOR-SCOTTISH-AIRPORT-CUSTOMS-DODGERS-name_page.html) our airports are hardly a major barrier either........

charley_bigtime

10th April 2004, 05:57 PM

Do you maintain that it is still a problem then?

Shaun from Scotland

10th April 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime
Do you maintain that it is still a problem then?

Sorry, what part is still a problem?

charley_bigtime

10th April 2004, 06:05 PM

>The control of the UK's coastline is far from easy. It's a small country in terms of land area (its slightly smaller than Oregon). But we have a hell of a lot of coastline to defend.

As far as gun control is concerned.

Shaun from Scotland

10th April 2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by charley_bigtime
>The control of the UK's coastline is far from easy. It's a small country in terms of land area (its slightly smaller than Oregon). But we have a hell of a lot of coastline to defend.

As far as gun control is concerned.

I took the main thrust of this from an article in The Scotsman about weapons being smuggled into Scotland and then distributed, but its not online.

A lot of them are ex- irish para-military weapons. The BBC talks about this here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3189184.stm)

The point of this is not that smuggling guns into Britain is a major reason for gun crime. It's not. There is some knock on effect but it's not a massively significant reason. But Britain is vulnerable to smuggling of other illegal contraband, people etc......