JohnRich 4 #51 September 29, 2004 QuoteI agree in the principles of freedoms... I would suggest if I was an American citizen I would like the right not to be shot... those dead people would disagree with the fact that their liberty is intact... Freedom is not free. Freedom and security are often at odds with each other; in order to gain more of one, you have to do with less of the other. If you have perfect security, you won't have very many, if any, freedoms. If you have perfect freedom, you won't have much security. So its a balancing act. Society has to decide how much of a crime problem they're willing to tolerate, while still preserving individual liberties. No country, anywhere, can guarantee you the right not to be shot. Criminals exist everywhere, even in countries where guns are banned outright. And there is no correlation between gun ownership rates, and gun crime rates. There are countries with no legal guns, and high crime, as well as countries with high gun ownership rates, and low gun crime rates. Your dream of a gun-free society in which you can't be shot is a fairy tale. Just because people die in crimes, does not mean that there is no liberty. Shit happens. Even in the most free, or most severely controlled societies on earth. You can't stay free for long, if you go around banning everything that can be used to kill someone. Quotethe danger some weirdo has the right to hold a lethal weapon at will is probably the wackiest idea I think though.... So we should ban other things too, like knives, motor vehicles, gasoline and fertilizer? Anyone who has ever committed a felony, or many misdemeanor crimes of violence, cannot legally possess a gun. So your statement about "any weirdo" is invalid. And if you are suggesting that we should pre-emptively not allow anyone to own a gun, because a few people might be "weird", well then, that's where liberty starts to be infringed. The rights of all, should not be restricted, because of the actions of a few. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #52 September 29, 2004 I was so tempted to quote and reply to your last post JohnRich, but... I dissagree with it all basically, so I wont bother... Any sane view of a civilised society would not provide access to ojects thats only purpose is distruction. What else is a gun for? As I have said before... unlinkly only sport. Cars - Knives - etc have normal uses. And yes any object can be abused illegally but that is not the point. A guns only purpose is to injure and kill. I think that the freedom lost by people not having access to them is a small price to pay for safety... And coming from a country where although gun crime is rising (but still 300 times less than the US!) I can say that I cant accept that gun availability is not directly linked to the ease of availability. The only reason I can see that the US has so many guns is historical and therefore inbred culturally. And therefore I can see why we have such a difference of opinion. I have always agreed that it is people that kill not the guns.... but I wouldnt know where to get a gun here even if I wanted one! Peoples choice in owning deadly items designed for that purpose should not be an issues.... Gun licencing should be simple..... Q. Do you want a gun? If yes... you cant have one... If no... sure application granted Do if feel aggreived I cant own a gun? Not at all... Do you feel aggrieved you cant own an inter-balistic missile? I bet you do! Thats where we differ I guess Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #53 September 29, 2004 QuoteThis is a common response... and given the choice... I'll take a beating with a bat.. a knive wound or a brick over a gunshot anyday! You would choose to be beaten with a bat? Strange choice. I choose to defend myself and those I love with whatever is necessary to ensure our safety.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #54 September 29, 2004 I dont think I said that I would volunteer for a beating per-se but rather that than get shot... If you mean... carry a gun and prevent a fight with other weapons, I guess that when everyone thinks that way it comes down to who is the better shot and the likelyhood of death probably increases for at least one party... In a knive fight or a regular pick up a stick etc, yeah it may hurt but more often than not people get to see another day. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #55 September 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote if it wasn't for American guns and the people that use them, you'd still be needing a Nazi visa to cross the English Channel. Funny, There were only 10 US pilots participating in the Battle of Britain, and both Hurricanes and Spitfires were made in Britain with British guns. After 15th September 1940 the Nazis abandoned all plans for an invasion of Britain. That's 15 months BEFORE Germany declared war on the USA. Really, the US had no part in defense of Britain before the Nazis declared war on us? Strange. I was just reading an article talking about how Britain was begging the US and its citizens for firearms. I remember metnion of the lend lease act, where US M1 Garands were shipped to Britain. I seem to recall hundreds of personally owned firearms being loaned to Britain for its defense. Besides, I doubt you would claim France would've freed itself without US arms and fighting men. Would a Nazi stamp for crossing the channel sit better with you than a Nazi passport?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #56 September 29, 2004 That's what I don't understand about the arguments from your side. You seem to think de-escalation after a firearms is pulled is impossible. I have news for you: once a gun is pulled, one side tends to get the hell out of there. Even without retreat, the situation can be defused by the man with the gun. Cops do it. Citizens do it. Why tell them they are not allowed to protect themselves with the most effective means? QuoteIn a knive fight or a regular pick up a stick etc, yeah it may hurt but more often than not people get to see another day. When confronted by someone intent on your bodily harm with a knife, you would rather have a stick than a gun? I really don't understand your desire to disarm yourself. I truly resent anyone who desires to disarm me. Since I am no threat to them armed, I can only conclude they wish to threaten me, but cannot do so whilst I am armed.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #57 September 29, 2004 Get a grip Kennedy, that kind of 'we won the war' stuff is bollocks. And the idea that loaned civilian weapons are / were necessary is a little bizarre too, although admittedly given the sort of weapons that some US citizens nowadays it may make more sense! I am sure alot of factors for and against combined to make the coalition effort successful during WW2 and despite what hollywood says... it was a coalition. Its a little disrespectful to all those that died to try and claim any national victory from those times... for either side. Certainly the family members I lost were fighting a war too... and for their efforts I am pleased I dont need to hold a gun now. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #58 September 29, 2004 QuoteAny sane view of a civilised society would not provide access to ojects thats only purpose is distruction. (sic) What else is a gun for? As I have said before... unlinkly only sport... A guns only purpose is to injure and kill. The primary purpose of guns is *not* to kill. The large majority of guns are sporting arms, used for hunting and target shooting. Self defense arms are for legally justified self-defense only, not murder. The fact that some criminals use them for illegal purposes is no different from criminals using cars for illegal purposes. Your insistance that the main purpose of guns is to kill people is incorrect. Even when guns are used in self-defense, 98% of the time they aren't even fired - just the sight of the gun sends the bad guys scurrying away. Just because guns were invented "to kill" hundreds of years ago, does not mean that we are forever locked-in to doing only that same thing for which they were originally designed. Since that time, firearms have evolved to become many other things; such as for many forms of sport shooting and for lawful self defense. To continue to view them as having the sole purpose of killing is incredibly incorrect. We are not forever bound to use an object for the same reason for which it was originally invented. Nor would it be correct to forever refer to it in that manner. For example, bows and arrows were originally invented for the purpose of killing, yet today archery is a popular sport unto itself, without any aspect of killing in the practice. If guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose. The BATF estimates there are 250 million guns in private ownership in America. And the FBI tells us there are about 7,000 firearms murders per year. When you compare those two statistics, you find out that only one out of every 35,000 guns is actually used to kill someone. Actually, even fewer than that, since some guns are used to kill more than one person. Thus, 99.997% of all guns are not used to commit murder. So for every murder that occurs, would it be your position that the other 34,999 guns which were _not_ used to commit murder, are being misused or under-utilized? And why are all these people buying guns that they never use for their "intended purpose"? QuoteI think that the freedom lost by people not having access to them is a small price to pay for safety... You're ignoring the evidence I've presented, once again. Banning guns only prevents the law-abiding from having them. And those people aren't the problem. The criminals, on the other hand, will always get the guns they want, no matter what laws you pass. They don't care about laws. Thus, what you end up with is a society that is defenseless against armed thugs. I much prefer to make the armed thugs live in fear of an armed defense from their intended victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #59 September 29, 2004 The facts are cold and hard.... In the situations you describe (ie as it is right now in the US) More people do die. This is purely down to gun availability and people carrying them NOT the more violent nature of US people I am sure More people have severe injuries We have gun crime, but nothing on the scale that you guys see. How often do I encounter times here I wish I had a gun? Never so far touch wood. If someone pulled a knive? I would try to defuse the situation... it doesnt need to go a step high to start that talk down as you suggest. You clearly live in an environment where you feel you need a gun. My point exactly. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #60 September 29, 2004 QuoteIf you mean... carry a gun and prevent a fight with other weapons, I guess that when everyone thinks that way it comes down to who is the better shot and the likelyhood of death probably increases for at least one party... Here we go again: This is another one of those scholarly studies that refutes your beliefs, so if you don't want to see it, skip over the remainder of this message now. Are you gone yet? Okay, here it is. Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery and Assault Incidents: Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection: Robbery Assault Physical force ............................ 51% 52% Tried to get help or frighten attacker .... 49% 40% Knife ..................................... 40% 30% Non-violent resistance/evasion ............ 35% 26% Threatened or reasoned with attacker ...... 31% 25% Other measures ............................ 27% 21% No self protection ........................ 25% 27% Other weapon .............................. 22% 25% Gun ....................................... 17% 12% From: Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", Table 4.4. Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b). Note: Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal incident can involve several different types of self- protection methods. Are you still here? If so, please note which method of self defense offers the *best* chance of avoiding injury in an attack. I apologize for once again bursting the bubble of your beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #61 September 29, 2004 You are absolutley right on a few points there JohnRich. Banning guns now is not a solution necessarily.... but I never said it was.... only that the position you are in now is a little poor. Yes there may only be thousands killed... far more injured. You dont need an automatic assualt rifle for sport surely?! or a high calibre? Really the feeling of power and awe of destruction is what drives those needs. I dont have a suggestion for what should happen to solve the problems the US has with guns, but there is a problem for sure. Here, criminals like to have guns and more are getting them.... but its still not easy to aquire for your everyday joe... there lies the difference Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #62 September 29, 2004 QuoteGet a grip Kennedy, that kind of 'we won the war' stuff is bollocks. Really? Yeah, Britain was doing a bang up job on its own. Without the lend lease, and with US participation, WWII could have gone to the Axis powers (yes, though people tend to forget it lately, there were bad guys other than the Germans). QuoteAnd the idea that loaned civilian weapons are / were necessary is a little bizarre too, Then why was England calling for aid? Why did Churchill beg for US citizens to send over their firearms? Why did the US send its M1 rifles to England when there was a shortage for arming our own troops? Quote although admittedly given the sort of weapons that some US citizens nowadays it may make more sense! US citizens are and have been restricted from owning machine guns without extremely instrusive investigations by the BATFE and the FBI. What "sorts of weapons" are you refering to? Criminals carry far more (potentially) dangerous firearms than I can purchase. It's called the black market, and no prohibition has ever been successful in eliminating it. In fact, prohibition tends to make the black market far more powerful. (e.g. chicago mobsters, south american drug smugglers, eastern european gangsters in the UK, etc)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #63 September 29, 2004 Yes I am still here... lol And no amount of figures can change the fact that.... You may get shot, and I am less likely. Am I likely to die in a robbery? Not really! Am I likely to regret never owning a gun here? Not really! Would I trade places with you in this regard? No chance... Was it a mistake to have arms in the constitution? well I have my opinion. I would swap places with you from a skydiving venue point tho Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #64 September 29, 2004 QuoteMore people do die. This is purely down to gun availability and people carrying them NOT the more violent nature of US people I am sure What makes you so certain? Are you such a genius that you can make sociologists everywhere obsolete? Guns cause crime? Then why are there countries with few guns and high crime, and why are there countries with many guns but low crime rates? QuoteHow often do I encounter times here I wish I had a gun? Never so far touch wood. If someone pulled a knive? I would try to defuse the situation... it doesnt need to go a step high to start that talk down as you suggest. You clearly live in an environment where you feel you need a gun. My point exactly. Why do you people feel better disarming yourselves? Are you such a threat to society that you cannot be trusted with a firearm? If you are comfortable with the possibility of putting your future in the hands of a violent criminal, fine. Don't tell me to do the same. I have managed to avoid violent felons just as you have. Everyone manages to avoid being a victim until a predator makes them one. Everybody was not a victim at some point. Some were attacked and defended themselves. Many were unable to do so. If I ever am confronted with this horrible scenario, I do not plan on becoming a victim.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #65 September 29, 2004 I dont think there is any doubt that without US assistance the war would have been different. Likewise... I dont think it would have been the same without Britain included... its a stupid debate. But what has that got to do with the fact that you live in a gun-rife environment where people die now? I dont. Sucks to be you. (from a gun point of view) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 September 29, 2004 QuoteAnd the idea that loaned civilian weapons are / were necessary is a little bizarre too. After the fall of Dunkirk, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard had to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun - ill-suited for military use because of it's short range and bulky ammunition. British government advertisements in U.S. newspapers and magazines asked Americans to "Send a Gun to Defend a British Home - British civilians, faced with threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns, and Binoculars from American citizens who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes." (1) Pro-Allied organizations in the United States collected weapons; the National Rifle Association shipped seven thousand guns to Britain, which also purchased surplus WWI Enfield rifles from America's Department Of War. (2) Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book "Their Finest Hour" recalls the arrival of the loads of guns. Churchill personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on fast ships and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. Churchill thought that the American donations were 'entirely on a diferent level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic except for the Canadial division itself. Churchill warned his First Lord that "the loss of these rifles and field-guns would be a disaster of the first order." Their Finest Hour recalled: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargos. The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them... By the end of July we were an armed nation... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands." Footnotes: (1) Advertisement, American Rifleman, November 1940. The full ad: SEND A GUN TO DEFEND A BRITISH HOME British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes. The American Committee for Defense of British Homes has organized to collect gifts of pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns, binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in the defense of British homes. Those arms are being shipped, with the consent of the British Government, to Civilian Committee for Protection of Homes, Birmingham, England. The members of which are Wickham Steed, Edward Hulton, and Lord Davies. You can aid by sending any arms or binoculars you can spare to American Committee for Defense of British Homes, C. Suydan Cutting, Chairman, Room 100, 10 Warren Street, New York, NY. (2) Yardley and Stevenson, p. 69; Edwards, "The Disarmament of Great Britain," American Rifleman, January 1988, pp. 36-37. Web References With your attitude, I'd be disinclined to send any of my guns to help you out, if you ever needed them again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #67 September 29, 2004 QuoteBut what has that got to do with the fact that you live in a gun-rife environment where people die now? I dont. Sucks to be you. (from a gun point of view) What reality are you in? You truly believe England does not have gun violence, and that people aren't murdered there? You are beyond my help. Good luck, and I hope your insane little world is never shattered by gun violence. I wish you could unsertand that it might be; then you might do something to prevent it from happening. ps - if you are not as out of it as your post shows, then I should tell you that I believe it sucks to be you, from a gun point of view. I am still able to protect myself should the need ever arise, and I am still allowed to make decisions for myself. If you're happier being told what to do, well, I wish you luck, because you will need it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #68 September 29, 2004 I am comparing crime in the US to the UK. where, I would guess with similar law enforcement policy and from my experience of living in both... people seem much the same. I am less likely to encounter a criminal with a gun... therefore I dont feel the need to have one. Lets be clear. I am not saying you cant have a gun! Because in the sitution you are in right now that would be giving the upper hand to criminals...... Still doesnt mean you have a good situation. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #69 September 29, 2004 John, I am tired of trying to explain to someone who is unwilling to listen or learn. Would you post the reasons, or a link to a past thread, where it was made abundantly clear why comparing the US to the UK for crime rates is a fool's errand? I am losing my patience, and have better things to do at the moment. Thanks.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #70 September 29, 2004 QuoteWhat reality are you in? You truly believe England does not have gun violence, and that people aren't murdered there? If you read my posts you will see on a few occasions I have said... We have guns (some) Gun crime is rising But it is still a minor fraction of what you see. I had never seen a gun until I lived in the US. I hope I never encounter gun crime too.... and with the levels as they are... It would be more likely if I lived in the US not here. Would be better to debate without the insults, but if you must... go for it dumbass... you cant shoot me from there Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #71 September 29, 2004 QuoteYou dont need an automatic assualt rifle for sport surely?! or a high calibre? Really the feeling of power and awe of destruction is what drives those needs. Such statements demonstrate a profound ignorance about American gun laws, guns in general, ammunition, the sporting use of guns, and the psyche of gun owners. You are just plain wrong on all counts. meep meep meep meep meep meep... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #72 September 29, 2004 Don't take this as an insult, it is simply a statement of fact: you are ignorant of both crime rates between our countries and of guns in general. QuoteIf you read my posts you will see on a few occasions I have said... We have guns (some) Gun crime is rising ahem, and I quote: QuoteBut what has that got to do with the fact that you live in a gun-rife environment where people die now? I dont. Sucks to be you. I rest my case for that line of thought. QuoteBut it is still a minor fraction of what you see. Factually incorrect. If you cannot cope with that fact, it is not my problem. QuoteWould be better to debate without the insults, but if you must... go for it dumbass... you cant shoot me from there This form of insult is unacceptable in the forums. I understand that you are new, but take heed, personal insults are not tolerated in these forums. I find it insulting that you say what you do, but that does not make it an insult. Calling someone a dumbass is a personal insult, and a personal attack. Ask a moderator if you are not sure what I am talking about. Good day to you.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #73 September 29, 2004 I entered this discussion, becuase ppl were complaining that the limits on what type of weapons they can have is limiting their freedom. I really dont see how you think the position the US is in with guns is a good one.... And, you'll probably be hard pushed to find many non-US citizens who wish their country was more like the US in this regard either (barring Iraq and the like) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #74 September 29, 2004 lol Kennedy.. my 'insult' was a little tongue in cheek,..and in reply to... 'What reality are you in' 'You are beyond help' and 'you are out of it' which could really be considered insulting You shouldnt be frustrated that you cant change people to say 'oohh yes youre right' within 2 mins... because.. a. you may be wrong b. I / they may really be too stupid to realise youre right! but.. I take in what you say, just dont agree with it as yet... Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Kennedy 0 #56 September 29, 2004 That's what I don't understand about the arguments from your side. You seem to think de-escalation after a firearms is pulled is impossible. I have news for you: once a gun is pulled, one side tends to get the hell out of there. Even without retreat, the situation can be defused by the man with the gun. Cops do it. Citizens do it. Why tell them they are not allowed to protect themselves with the most effective means? QuoteIn a knive fight or a regular pick up a stick etc, yeah it may hurt but more often than not people get to see another day. When confronted by someone intent on your bodily harm with a knife, you would rather have a stick than a gun? I really don't understand your desire to disarm yourself. I truly resent anyone who desires to disarm me. Since I am no threat to them armed, I can only conclude they wish to threaten me, but cannot do so whilst I am armed.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #57 September 29, 2004 Get a grip Kennedy, that kind of 'we won the war' stuff is bollocks. And the idea that loaned civilian weapons are / were necessary is a little bizarre too, although admittedly given the sort of weapons that some US citizens nowadays it may make more sense! I am sure alot of factors for and against combined to make the coalition effort successful during WW2 and despite what hollywood says... it was a coalition. Its a little disrespectful to all those that died to try and claim any national victory from those times... for either side. Certainly the family members I lost were fighting a war too... and for their efforts I am pleased I dont need to hold a gun now. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #58 September 29, 2004 QuoteAny sane view of a civilised society would not provide access to ojects thats only purpose is distruction. (sic) What else is a gun for? As I have said before... unlinkly only sport... A guns only purpose is to injure and kill. The primary purpose of guns is *not* to kill. The large majority of guns are sporting arms, used for hunting and target shooting. Self defense arms are for legally justified self-defense only, not murder. The fact that some criminals use them for illegal purposes is no different from criminals using cars for illegal purposes. Your insistance that the main purpose of guns is to kill people is incorrect. Even when guns are used in self-defense, 98% of the time they aren't even fired - just the sight of the gun sends the bad guys scurrying away. Just because guns were invented "to kill" hundreds of years ago, does not mean that we are forever locked-in to doing only that same thing for which they were originally designed. Since that time, firearms have evolved to become many other things; such as for many forms of sport shooting and for lawful self defense. To continue to view them as having the sole purpose of killing is incredibly incorrect. We are not forever bound to use an object for the same reason for which it was originally invented. Nor would it be correct to forever refer to it in that manner. For example, bows and arrows were originally invented for the purpose of killing, yet today archery is a popular sport unto itself, without any aspect of killing in the practice. If guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose. The BATF estimates there are 250 million guns in private ownership in America. And the FBI tells us there are about 7,000 firearms murders per year. When you compare those two statistics, you find out that only one out of every 35,000 guns is actually used to kill someone. Actually, even fewer than that, since some guns are used to kill more than one person. Thus, 99.997% of all guns are not used to commit murder. So for every murder that occurs, would it be your position that the other 34,999 guns which were _not_ used to commit murder, are being misused or under-utilized? And why are all these people buying guns that they never use for their "intended purpose"? QuoteI think that the freedom lost by people not having access to them is a small price to pay for safety... You're ignoring the evidence I've presented, once again. Banning guns only prevents the law-abiding from having them. And those people aren't the problem. The criminals, on the other hand, will always get the guns they want, no matter what laws you pass. They don't care about laws. Thus, what you end up with is a society that is defenseless against armed thugs. I much prefer to make the armed thugs live in fear of an armed defense from their intended victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #59 September 29, 2004 The facts are cold and hard.... In the situations you describe (ie as it is right now in the US) More people do die. This is purely down to gun availability and people carrying them NOT the more violent nature of US people I am sure More people have severe injuries We have gun crime, but nothing on the scale that you guys see. How often do I encounter times here I wish I had a gun? Never so far touch wood. If someone pulled a knive? I would try to defuse the situation... it doesnt need to go a step high to start that talk down as you suggest. You clearly live in an environment where you feel you need a gun. My point exactly. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #60 September 29, 2004 QuoteIf you mean... carry a gun and prevent a fight with other weapons, I guess that when everyone thinks that way it comes down to who is the better shot and the likelyhood of death probably increases for at least one party... Here we go again: This is another one of those scholarly studies that refutes your beliefs, so if you don't want to see it, skip over the remainder of this message now. Are you gone yet? Okay, here it is. Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery and Assault Incidents: Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection: Robbery Assault Physical force ............................ 51% 52% Tried to get help or frighten attacker .... 49% 40% Knife ..................................... 40% 30% Non-violent resistance/evasion ............ 35% 26% Threatened or reasoned with attacker ...... 31% 25% Other measures ............................ 27% 21% No self protection ........................ 25% 27% Other weapon .............................. 22% 25% Gun ....................................... 17% 12% From: Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", Table 4.4. Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b). Note: Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal incident can involve several different types of self- protection methods. Are you still here? If so, please note which method of self defense offers the *best* chance of avoiding injury in an attack. I apologize for once again bursting the bubble of your beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #61 September 29, 2004 You are absolutley right on a few points there JohnRich. Banning guns now is not a solution necessarily.... but I never said it was.... only that the position you are in now is a little poor. Yes there may only be thousands killed... far more injured. You dont need an automatic assualt rifle for sport surely?! or a high calibre? Really the feeling of power and awe of destruction is what drives those needs. I dont have a suggestion for what should happen to solve the problems the US has with guns, but there is a problem for sure. Here, criminals like to have guns and more are getting them.... but its still not easy to aquire for your everyday joe... there lies the difference Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #62 September 29, 2004 QuoteGet a grip Kennedy, that kind of 'we won the war' stuff is bollocks. Really? Yeah, Britain was doing a bang up job on its own. Without the lend lease, and with US participation, WWII could have gone to the Axis powers (yes, though people tend to forget it lately, there were bad guys other than the Germans). QuoteAnd the idea that loaned civilian weapons are / were necessary is a little bizarre too, Then why was England calling for aid? Why did Churchill beg for US citizens to send over their firearms? Why did the US send its M1 rifles to England when there was a shortage for arming our own troops? Quote although admittedly given the sort of weapons that some US citizens nowadays it may make more sense! US citizens are and have been restricted from owning machine guns without extremely instrusive investigations by the BATFE and the FBI. What "sorts of weapons" are you refering to? Criminals carry far more (potentially) dangerous firearms than I can purchase. It's called the black market, and no prohibition has ever been successful in eliminating it. In fact, prohibition tends to make the black market far more powerful. (e.g. chicago mobsters, south american drug smugglers, eastern european gangsters in the UK, etc)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #63 September 29, 2004 Yes I am still here... lol And no amount of figures can change the fact that.... You may get shot, and I am less likely. Am I likely to die in a robbery? Not really! Am I likely to regret never owning a gun here? Not really! Would I trade places with you in this regard? No chance... Was it a mistake to have arms in the constitution? well I have my opinion. I would swap places with you from a skydiving venue point tho Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #64 September 29, 2004 QuoteMore people do die. This is purely down to gun availability and people carrying them NOT the more violent nature of US people I am sure What makes you so certain? Are you such a genius that you can make sociologists everywhere obsolete? Guns cause crime? Then why are there countries with few guns and high crime, and why are there countries with many guns but low crime rates? QuoteHow often do I encounter times here I wish I had a gun? Never so far touch wood. If someone pulled a knive? I would try to defuse the situation... it doesnt need to go a step high to start that talk down as you suggest. You clearly live in an environment where you feel you need a gun. My point exactly. Why do you people feel better disarming yourselves? Are you such a threat to society that you cannot be trusted with a firearm? If you are comfortable with the possibility of putting your future in the hands of a violent criminal, fine. Don't tell me to do the same. I have managed to avoid violent felons just as you have. Everyone manages to avoid being a victim until a predator makes them one. Everybody was not a victim at some point. Some were attacked and defended themselves. Many were unable to do so. If I ever am confronted with this horrible scenario, I do not plan on becoming a victim.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #65 September 29, 2004 I dont think there is any doubt that without US assistance the war would have been different. Likewise... I dont think it would have been the same without Britain included... its a stupid debate. But what has that got to do with the fact that you live in a gun-rife environment where people die now? I dont. Sucks to be you. (from a gun point of view) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 September 29, 2004 QuoteAnd the idea that loaned civilian weapons are / were necessary is a little bizarre too. After the fall of Dunkirk, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard had to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun - ill-suited for military use because of it's short range and bulky ammunition. British government advertisements in U.S. newspapers and magazines asked Americans to "Send a Gun to Defend a British Home - British civilians, faced with threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns, and Binoculars from American citizens who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes." (1) Pro-Allied organizations in the United States collected weapons; the National Rifle Association shipped seven thousand guns to Britain, which also purchased surplus WWI Enfield rifles from America's Department Of War. (2) Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book "Their Finest Hour" recalls the arrival of the loads of guns. Churchill personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on fast ships and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. Churchill thought that the American donations were 'entirely on a diferent level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic except for the Canadial division itself. Churchill warned his First Lord that "the loss of these rifles and field-guns would be a disaster of the first order." Their Finest Hour recalled: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargos. The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them... By the end of July we were an armed nation... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands." Footnotes: (1) Advertisement, American Rifleman, November 1940. The full ad: SEND A GUN TO DEFEND A BRITISH HOME British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes. The American Committee for Defense of British Homes has organized to collect gifts of pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns, binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in the defense of British homes. Those arms are being shipped, with the consent of the British Government, to Civilian Committee for Protection of Homes, Birmingham, England. The members of which are Wickham Steed, Edward Hulton, and Lord Davies. You can aid by sending any arms or binoculars you can spare to American Committee for Defense of British Homes, C. Suydan Cutting, Chairman, Room 100, 10 Warren Street, New York, NY. (2) Yardley and Stevenson, p. 69; Edwards, "The Disarmament of Great Britain," American Rifleman, January 1988, pp. 36-37. Web References With your attitude, I'd be disinclined to send any of my guns to help you out, if you ever needed them again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #67 September 29, 2004 QuoteBut what has that got to do with the fact that you live in a gun-rife environment where people die now? I dont. Sucks to be you. (from a gun point of view) What reality are you in? You truly believe England does not have gun violence, and that people aren't murdered there? You are beyond my help. Good luck, and I hope your insane little world is never shattered by gun violence. I wish you could unsertand that it might be; then you might do something to prevent it from happening. ps - if you are not as out of it as your post shows, then I should tell you that I believe it sucks to be you, from a gun point of view. I am still able to protect myself should the need ever arise, and I am still allowed to make decisions for myself. If you're happier being told what to do, well, I wish you luck, because you will need it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #68 September 29, 2004 I am comparing crime in the US to the UK. where, I would guess with similar law enforcement policy and from my experience of living in both... people seem much the same. I am less likely to encounter a criminal with a gun... therefore I dont feel the need to have one. Lets be clear. I am not saying you cant have a gun! Because in the sitution you are in right now that would be giving the upper hand to criminals...... Still doesnt mean you have a good situation. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #69 September 29, 2004 John, I am tired of trying to explain to someone who is unwilling to listen or learn. Would you post the reasons, or a link to a past thread, where it was made abundantly clear why comparing the US to the UK for crime rates is a fool's errand? I am losing my patience, and have better things to do at the moment. Thanks.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #70 September 29, 2004 QuoteWhat reality are you in? You truly believe England does not have gun violence, and that people aren't murdered there? If you read my posts you will see on a few occasions I have said... We have guns (some) Gun crime is rising But it is still a minor fraction of what you see. I had never seen a gun until I lived in the US. I hope I never encounter gun crime too.... and with the levels as they are... It would be more likely if I lived in the US not here. Would be better to debate without the insults, but if you must... go for it dumbass... you cant shoot me from there Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #71 September 29, 2004 QuoteYou dont need an automatic assualt rifle for sport surely?! or a high calibre? Really the feeling of power and awe of destruction is what drives those needs. Such statements demonstrate a profound ignorance about American gun laws, guns in general, ammunition, the sporting use of guns, and the psyche of gun owners. You are just plain wrong on all counts. meep meep meep meep meep meep... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #72 September 29, 2004 Don't take this as an insult, it is simply a statement of fact: you are ignorant of both crime rates between our countries and of guns in general. QuoteIf you read my posts you will see on a few occasions I have said... We have guns (some) Gun crime is rising ahem, and I quote: QuoteBut what has that got to do with the fact that you live in a gun-rife environment where people die now? I dont. Sucks to be you. I rest my case for that line of thought. QuoteBut it is still a minor fraction of what you see. Factually incorrect. If you cannot cope with that fact, it is not my problem. QuoteWould be better to debate without the insults, but if you must... go for it dumbass... you cant shoot me from there This form of insult is unacceptable in the forums. I understand that you are new, but take heed, personal insults are not tolerated in these forums. I find it insulting that you say what you do, but that does not make it an insult. Calling someone a dumbass is a personal insult, and a personal attack. Ask a moderator if you are not sure what I am talking about. Good day to you.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #73 September 29, 2004 I entered this discussion, becuase ppl were complaining that the limits on what type of weapons they can have is limiting their freedom. I really dont see how you think the position the US is in with guns is a good one.... And, you'll probably be hard pushed to find many non-US citizens who wish their country was more like the US in this regard either (barring Iraq and the like) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #74 September 29, 2004 lol Kennedy.. my 'insult' was a little tongue in cheek,..and in reply to... 'What reality are you in' 'You are beyond help' and 'you are out of it' which could really be considered insulting You shouldnt be frustrated that you cant change people to say 'oohh yes youre right' within 2 mins... because.. a. you may be wrong b. I / they may really be too stupid to realise youre right! but.. I take in what you say, just dont agree with it as yet... Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
