Re-think gun control?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri May 07, 2010 8:28 am

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 07, 2010 9:03 am

Not this hoary old chestnut again.

No. Read the article properly.

But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.

Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

Our police are unarmed so they cannot be used a means of oppression by the state. Maybe you should look to disarming your own police.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri May 07, 2010 9:17 am

Re-think? Have Americans actually thought this issue a first time through? The most I've heard are John Wayne and Rambo impersonations.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri May 07, 2010 1:51 pm

yaaarrrgg;1308692 wrote: Re-think? Have Americans actually thought this issue a first time through? The most I've heard are John Wayne and Rambo impersonations.

Chicago certainly has. They are going to have a gun buy back to rid the streets of guns and make Chicago safe for honest folks once again.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

In other words, they are gonna waste even more time and money, accomplish nothing, and the press will write it up as a huge success.:yh_rotfl

Royd Fissure · Post by **Royd Fissure** » Fri May 07, 2010 7:10 pm

You can't unscramble an omelette as the saying goes.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Sat May 08, 2010 5:25 am

only thing gun control does is penalise legitimate law abiding gun owners

funny how gun ownership in the uk is extremly difficult, especially hand guns yet gun crime is rife :rolleyes:

sorry but this is a pet subject of mine since i was forced to give up a beloved hobby cos of a knee jerk reaction by the uk government back in the day

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 5:36 am

If I lived in a city that indulged in the feel good gun buy back nonsense, I would consider making "slam guns", giving one to each family member to turn in for some of "our" money back.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:04 am

beowulf;1308802 wrote: only thing gun control does is penalise legitimate law abiding gun owners

funny how gun ownership in the uk is extremly difficult, especially hand guns yet gun crime is rife :rolleyes:

sorry but this is a pet subject of mine since i was forced to give up a beloved hobby cos of a knee jerk reaction by the uk government back in the day

They were responding to public demand after a number of incidents. Stop feeling oppressed.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:06 am

gmc;1308816 wrote: They were responding to public demand after a number of incidents. Stop feeling oppressed.

You ARE oppressed. Learn to recognize it.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:30 am

gmc;1308816 wrote: They were responding to public demand after a number of incidents. Stop feeling oppressed.

whatever :rolleyes:

alli know is that firearms are all but banned in the UK yet gun crime has soared since......please explain that one to me.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 08, 2010 7:51 am

hoppy;1308820 wrote: You ARE oppressed. Learn to recognize it.

No we are not, the great british public have reached up and gripped our politicians by the testicles and are telling them to sort things out. We are in the middle of major constitutional crisis here. I think of Nick Clegg backs off on PR his own party will lynch him. They are demonstrating outside the liberal democrat offices where a meeting is going on just now.

posted by beowulf

whatever

alli know is that firearms are all but banned in the UK yet gun crime has soared since......please explain that one to me.

What makes you believe that and why do you think the handgun ban has anything to do with it?

It would have been a brave government that opposed a ban. In the stirling by election the idiot that stood as a pro gun candidate needed police protection. It's just one more of the reasons there are no tory MP's in scotland.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 8:13 am

gmc;1308831 wrote: No we are not, the great british public have reached up and gripped our politicians by the testicles and are telling them to sort things out. We are in the middle of major constitutional crisis here. I think of Nick Clegg backs off on PR his own party will lynch him. They are demonstrating outside the liberal democrat offices where a meeting is going on just now.

posted by beowulf

What makes you believe that and why do you think the handgun ban has anything to do with it?

It would have been a brave government that opposed a ban. In the stirling by election the idiot that stood as a pro gun candidate needed police protection. It's just one more of the reasons there are no tory MP's in scotland.

If you feel safe and happy being all but defenseless, more power to you. I've never felt secure without a firearm nearby. And I thank God Americans (most) still can own one.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:17 am

gmc;1308831 wrote:

What makes you believe that and why do you think the handgun ban has anything to do with it?

.

well, lets see...........i live in one of the cities which has the highest levels of gun crime in britain...........i regulary see my cities cops armed......and im not talking just handguns, im talking semi auto rifles.....we often hear of shootings (gang and drug related) in the papers and on the news..........only a mile from me there was a case of a female jewellry shop owner being shot during a robbery (ask Gill since she lives local too and will know of it)..........so how can the handgun ban be positivly influencing gun crime, which is what was the reason touted for it?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:33 am

beowulf;1308855 wrote: well, lets see...........i live in one of the cities which has the highest levels of gun crime in britain...........i regulary see my cities cops armed......and im not talking just handguns, im talking semi auto rifles.....we often hear of shootings (gang and drug related) in the papers and on the news..........only a mile from me there was a case of a female jewellry shop owner being shot during a robbery (ask Gill since she lives local too and will know of it)..........so how can the handgun ban be positivly influencing gun crime, which is what was the reason touted for it?

Why do you think the hand gun ban has made it worse? Which is what you were implying

alli know is that firearms are all but banned in the UK yet gun crime has soared since......please explain that one to me.

So far as I am concerned anyone who wants to own a handgun and keep it at home has just demonstrated they have the kind of mentality that should preclude them from having one. The only use for a handgun is to kill someone with. The ban was brought in after incidents where legally owned handguns were used in mass shootings. Without access to the gun it is unlikely those shootings would have taken place. Allowing widespread gun ownership is hardly likely to reduce the crime figures, if it did America would be the safest country in the world.

Come to think of it why don't they just arm all the afghans and let them sort out the Taliban themselves and defend their own freedom if it's such a great idea.

More ammunition for Holyrood as airgun ban powers set for transfer - Herald Scotland | News | Politics

Looks like we are about to ban air guns as well. If you think that doesn't have widespread support you are badly mistaken.

posted by hoppy

If you feel safe and happy being all but defenseless, more power to you. I've never felt secure without a firearm nearby. And I thank God Americans (most) still can own one.

If I was american i might feel the same way as you. But I'm not. our history and traditions are very different and allowing gun ownership in the UK would lead to a bloodbath.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:26 am

gmc;1308858 wrote: Why do you think the hand gun ban has made it worse? Which is what you were implying

So far as I am concerned anyone who wants to own a handgun and keep it at home has just demonstrated they have the kind of mentality that should preclude them from having one. The only use for a handgun is to kill someone with. The ban was brought in after incidents where legally owned handguns were used in mass shootings. Without access to the gun it is unlikely those shootings would have taken place. Allowing widespread gun ownership is hardly likely to reduce the crime figures, if it did America would be the safest country in the world.

Come to think of it why don't they just arm all the afghans and let them sort out the Taliban themselves and defend their own freedom if it's such a great idea.

More ammunition for Holyrood as airgun ban powers set for transfer - Herald Scotland | News | Politics

Looks like we are about to ban air guns as well. If you think that doesn't have widespread support you are badly mistaken.

posted by hoppy

If I was american i might feel the same way as you. But I'm not. our history and traditions are very different and allowing gun ownership in the UK would lead to a bloodbath.

So, if you're from Great Britain and immigrate to the USA, you should be denied the permits to legally own a firearm because you lack the mental make up to be responsible as a gun owner? Interesting.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:46 am

gmc;1308858 wrote: Why do you think the hand gun ban has made it worse? Which is what you were implying

So far as I am concerned anyone who wants to own a handgun and keep it at home has just demonstrated they have the kind of mentality that should preclude them from having one .

*sigh*

reducing all gun crime was touted as the reason for denying the legal ownership of hand guns.............didnt happen did it :rolleyes:

are you trying to say that cos i owned firearms when i was allowed to that i was in someway mentally challenged or disturbed?

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Sat May 08, 2010 11:10 am

It is very important to allow people the right to own and bear firearms. I mean, carrying a glock into a Starbucks as some are doing these days is over the top; but people should not have to fear their government; the government should fear the people if it's attempt to control and subjugate them goes over the top.

People should also be mindful of attempts to control the supply of ammo. I was in the U.S. Army and have several nice handguns and weapons. I also can reload for some of them.

I would never let anyone take my right to defend myself and mine away. If they tried to outlaw guns and ammo, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. To get what I own, some of them would be going too. I'm not the only person who feels this way in the United States -- or U.S. occupied Cascadia where I reside.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sat May 08, 2010 3:35 pm

hoppy;1308839 wrote: If you feel safe and happy being all but defenceless, more power to you.

On the other hand I prefer to live in countries where the police don't carry guns. It makes me feel safer.

hoppy;1308839 wrote: I've never felt secure without a firearm nearby. And I thank God Americans (most) still can own one.

A short googling of the literature of mortality studies shows that having a gun in your house increases your risk of dying by homicide by about 1.6 times, and that's in America where your potential home invaders are possibly carrying guns themselves. (Although being white and being male both reduce the increase in risk measurably).

Nevertheless, the risk is increased, so your feeling of security is accompanied by an increase in insecurity. (If being killed is the thing you're insecure about. If you're insecure about not being able to pull a gun on someone who is no risk to your life, then there's no study for that).

But probably the feeling of security is illusory.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sat May 08, 2010 4:03 pm

Ferret_annica;1308875 wrote: It is very important to allow people the right to own and bear firearms. I mean, carrying a glock into a Starbucks as some are doing these days is over the top; but people should not have to fear their government; the government should fear the people if it's attempt to control and subjugate them goes over the top.

In the modern era political protest involving guns is terrorism, and immediately yields all your rights and everything you had resembling rights, and people don't even feel the normal obligation to be polite.

But for my part, I'm not worried about the political stability of the countries in which I live at the moment. I'm feel more fear from the judgement of 18,000 police each with a gun on their hip.

And if a western government goes to war against its people it will be because climate change has meant that there's not enough food. It will be large culls of cities, and a gun won't make a blind bit of difference. You'll need a gas-mask.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:33 pm

Bored_Wombat;1308890 wrote: In the modern era political protest involving guns is terrorism, and immediately yields all your rights and everything you had resembling rights, and people don't even feel the normal obligation to be polite.

But for my part, I'm not worried about the political stability of the countries in which I live at the moment. I'm feel more fear from the judgement of 18,000 police each with a gun on their hip.

And if a western government goes to war against its people it will be because climate change has meant that there's not enough food. It will be large culls of cities, and a gun won't make a blind bit of difference. You'll need a gas-mask.

Many euros and most liberals say sh!t like that.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sat May 08, 2010 7:58 pm

hoppy;1308893 wrote: Many euros and most liberals say sh!t like that.

When was the most recent time an American used their gun to defend themselves against their government?

Does it happen often?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat May 08, 2010 8:19 pm

hoppy;1308839 wrote: If you feel safe and happy being all but defenseless, more power to you. I've never felt secure without a firearm nearby. And I thank God Americans (most) still can own one.

I'm surprised how many believers in God are pro-firearm. Though if you truly believed in God, you'd feel secure without a firearm, true? You know ... all that stuff about "guardian angels", Daniel in the Lion's Den, etc. It kinda says you don't trust him to handle anything that's actually important. My theory is that there's people that don't believe in God, and then there's people that make-believe they do. Your actions speak louder than words.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:11 pm

yaaarrrgg;1308899 wrote: I'm surprised how many believers in God are pro-firearm. Though if you truly believed in God, you'd feel secure without a firearm, true? You know ... all that stuff about "guardian angels", Daniel in the Lion's Den, etc. It kinda says you don't trust him to handle anything that's actually important. My theory is that there's people that don't believe in God, and then there's people that make-believe they do. Your actions speak louder than words.

Don't the Bible and Torah say something about not killing too?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:43 pm

'Bout time for one of you to trot out the children now. Ban all guns and save our children, blah, blah, blah.

If you feel so freakin safe without firearms, why don't you take late night strolls through London or Manchester neighborhoods?

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:50 pm

Bored_Wombat;1308890 wrote: "In the modern era political protest involving guns is terrorism, and immediately yields all your rights and everything you had resembling rights, and people don't even feel the normal obligation to be polite."

Oh, like dude, I don't mean in a demonstration, I'm talking about of they start seizing folks, putting them on rail cars to take off to detainment centers.

Bored-wombat;1308890 wrote: 'And if a western government goes to war against its people it will be because climate change has meant that there's not enough food. It will be large culls of cities, and a gun won't make a blind bit of difference. You'll need a gas-mask."

Nah, it means the people like Bush and Cheney who did the false flag op known as "9-11" blowing up buildings with hijacked airliners as a diversion decide to thin the herd because of political differences.

Much as Augusto Pinochet did after the U.S. helped him overthrow the legally elected Salvatore Allende government in Chile when so many disappeared to go to their deaths or were incarcerated in clandestine prisons.

(Oh and you mean 'protective mask,' not 'gas mask.' We had to do push-ups in BCT in the Army if we made that error)

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:04 pm

Bored_Wombat;1308898 wrote: When was the most recent time an American used their gun to defend themselves against their government?

Does it happen often?

Ask Randy Weaver about Ruby Ridge or the David Koresh and the Branch Davidians about the Waco Incident.

Heh, I would of given you URLs as citations for both incidents of government abuse, but I need 15 postings to qualify to do that.

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:09 pm

Bored_Wombat;1308901 wrote: Don't the Bible and Torah say something about not killing too?

Actually, if you look at the true meaning of the verbiage of the sixth commandment in terms of King James English, "Thou shall not kill" means, "You will not murder."

It did not use the verbiage germane to the time, Thou shall not slay [in battle]. primarily because that was not ever meant to be covered under the auspices of that particular commandment.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:14 pm

Bored_Wombat;1308901 wrote: Don't the Bible and Torah say something about not killing too?

Yes, I thought so. So much for turning the other cheek.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:33 pm

Ferret_annica;1308906 wrote: Ask Randy Weaver about Ruby Ridge or the David Koresh and the Branch Davidians about the Waco Incident.

Heh, I would of given you URLs as citations for both incidents of government abuse, but I need 15 postings to qualify to do that.

Both these cases of a person using violence against the government end with them losing their life or family.

There's actually a pattern here. If you frame a dispute in terms of violent resolution, the winner is predestined to be the largest, meanest brute. Unless you have a stockpile of nukes, and a sizable army, it's better to use non-violent civil disobedience (e.g. Indian Revolution, Civil Rights movement, etc). Then if they kill you, they are crucified by public opinion. Once you whip out a gun, though, you look like any other crazy person with a gun, regardless of whether you have a good reason for doing so or not.

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Sat May 08, 2010 11:04 pm

yaaarrrgg;1308910 wrote: Both these cases of a person using violence against the government end with them losing their life or family.

There's actually a pattern here. If you frame a dispute in terms of violent resolution, the winner is predestined to be the largest, meanest brute. Unless you have a stockpile of nukes, and a sizable army, it's better to use non-violent civil disobedience (e.g. Indian Revolution, Civil Rights movement, etc). Then if they kill you, they are crucified by public opinion. Once you whip out a gun, though, you look like any other crazy person with a gun, regardless of whether you have a good reason for doing so or not.

Actually, they did not have to set fire to the compound in Waco making crispy critters out of innocent women and children. They also could of seized Koresh when he was jogging or some other time when he was in public.

No, this was government abuse, and then Attorney General Janet Reno should of been keel hauled legally over this. Waco was a situation involving the worst kind of governmental mis-use of power and authority.

And in the case of Ruby Ridge where snipers killed Randy's son and they were over zealous in the manner they handled this situation, many people, myself included blame how the government handled that situation, not Randy Weaver's Brand of politics or ownership of firearms.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sun May 09, 2010 12:15 am

Ferret_annica;1308903 wrote: Oh, like dude, I don't mean in a demonstration, I'm talking about of they start seizing folks, putting them on rail cars to take off to detainment centers.

Well, you should demonstrate when they bring in the laws that allow them to do that, rather than wait until they start and try popping a few of your own army off with a rifle from a top floor window.

I mean, in a modern democracy you would have to see an erosion of rights before they pull off a Nazi Germany on you. If its working well you should be able to vote the politicians out before you have to shoot the army.

Ferret_annica;1308903 wrote: Nah, it means the people like Bush and Cheney who did the false flag op known as "9-11" blowing up buildings with hijacked airliners as a diversion decide to thin the herd because of political differences.

Yeah. I can't really buy into that scale of grand conspiracy theory. I think what happened was a bunch of Saudis did it.

Ferret_annica;1308903 wrote: Much as Augusto Pinochet did after the U.S. helped him overthrow the legally elected Salvatore Allende government in Chile when so many disappeared to go to their deaths or were incarcerated in clandestine prisons.

While take the broader point in that I agree that in countries with a younger or more fragile democracy than one finds in the West there is a risk. Sri Lanka has had real bother, and much of Africa.

On the other hand, I don't think that Chile can be blamed for Pinochet. That was an invasion by proxy from a foreign power.

But your government suddenly plunging into fascism is one risk. Getting shot in a confrontation that would naturally be non-life threatening is another. You have to evaluate the relative risks.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sun May 09, 2010 12:45 am

Ferret_annica;1308911 wrote: Actually, they did not have to set fire to the compound in Waco making crispy critters out of innocent women and children. They also could of seized Koresh when he was jogging or some other time when he was in public.

Nevertheless, the large arsenal they had was no use against the government. They would have been no worse off unarmed.

(And it's "could have")

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Sun May 09, 2010 1:26 am

Bored_Wombat;1308901 wrote: Don't the Bible and Torah say something about not killing too?

and dosnt the Koran say that all non believers should be killed? :rolleyes:

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sun May 09, 2010 5:23 am

beowulf;1308915 wrote: and dosnt the Koran say that all non believers should be killed? :rolleyes:

I think it's a bit more inclusive than that.

It famously says:

"Say: O unbelievers!

I worship not that which ye worship,

Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

And I shall not worship that which ye worship.

Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

To you be your Way, and to me mine."

Or Arabic to approximately that effect.

They're actually quite cuddly as long as you don't draw a picture of Mohammed, or show them the soles of your feet.

Or cuddle them, in a mixed-gender type cuddle.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 09, 2010 7:51 am

Bored_Wombat;1308914 wrote: Nevertheless, the large arsenal they had was no use against the government. They would have been no worse off unarmed.

(And it's "could have")

I agree... The fallout from Wako would have probably taken down the entire Clinton presidency if they were a non-militant, non-violent group. Like when China's government drove over a non-violent protester with a tank. That sent shock waves around the world.

John Lennon said something that always stuck in my head: A government actually wants to make people violent. Then the person is on their level, and they know how to handle them.

A government doesn't have as many tools at their disposal if a person is unarmed. As long as they are shooting *back* at an armed person, the officials can claim self-defense. But any act of overt aggression against a non-violent dissenter would erode the legitimacy of the entire government. Without the people backing the political capital of the government, those leaders have no power.

A gun actually makes a person less powerful, when it comes to fighting a government with a powerful military force.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Sun May 09, 2010 7:52 am

Bored_Wombat;1308919 wrote:

They're actually quite cuddly .

dont look cuddly to me..............................unless i can cuddle them at 1000 metres with a Barrett .50 :sneaky:

Attached files

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 09, 2010 7:58 am

beowulf;1308915 wrote: and dosnt the Koran say that all non believers should be killed? :rolleyes:

The Bible says the same thing. Haven't you read it?

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Sun May 09, 2010 9:01 am

yaaarrrgg;1308941 wrote: The Bible says the same thing. Haven't you read it?

no....im too old to read fairy tales

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sun May 09, 2010 5:12 pm

beowulf;1308940 wrote: dont look cuddly to me..............................unless i can cuddle them at 1000 metres with a Barrett .50 :sneaky:

Looks can be deceptive. They're probably more tolerant of religious diversity than you would guess from the way they prohibit employment, education and sports for women.

To be fair, the Taliban are criticised for not having any education in the Koran.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sun May 09, 2010 5:16 pm

yaaarrrgg;1308941 wrote: The Bible says the same thing. Haven't you read it?

Does it really?

I knew it was for the putting to death of witches and gays.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 09, 2010 7:16 pm

Bored_Wombat;1309035 wrote: Does it really?

I knew it was for the putting to death of witches and gays.

Worshiping other gods = death (Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10, Exodus 22:20)

The difference with Islam is that not as many people take the Bible seriously anymore.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon May 10, 2010 12:10 am

yaaarrrgg;1309048 wrote: Worshiping other gods = death (Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10, Exodus 22:20)

The difference with Islam is that not as many people take the Bible seriously anymore.

OTOH the US republican party seems to be constructed largely out of fundies.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 10, 2010 1:29 am

hoppy;1308867 wrote: So, if you're from Great Britain and immigrate to the USA, you should be denied the permits to legally own a firearm because you lack the mental make up to be responsible as a gun owner? Interesting.

If you emigrate to america because you want to be able to buy machine guns and carry weapons I would suggest that is maybe someone you should seriously think about letting in. You come across as being paranoid and living in fear I don't think you are But I would not want to put up with a situation where I am so afraid I need to carry a gun all the time.

Judging from some of the posts here you are all living in fear, worried about big government but are happy to live at the mercy of big corporations and god help anybody that falls on hard times through illness because nobody else seems to think it is something that should be their concern.

Personally i prefer a country where the police don't carry guns and where traditionally in peacetime we have a small army. It would actually be quite difficult for the UK government to use the army at home against it's own people just for that reason alone.

You have your own traditions and history you need to work out solutions for yourselves but don't assume the UK is like the states but with different accents. It's a whole different ballgame in the UK context.

posted by beowulf

*sigh*

reducing all gun crime was touted as the reason for denying the legal ownership of hand guns.............didnt happen did it

are you trying to say that cos i owned firearms when i was allowed to that i was in someway mentally challenged or disturbed?

It was one of the reasons but the main one was it was legally owned guns that were used in mass shootings. The reason for the demand to ban airguns is because little shits are opening fire on babies in prams with a weapon they can walk in off the street and buy. You still haven't made a case for how the gun ban has made things worse.

Like most blokes in the UK I find military history fascinating. On the other hand someone who is obsessed by guns and knives and carries around a knife or wants to carry a gun has go serious problems of self esteem. I'm not saying you are mentally challenged or mentally disturbed but as UK voter I don't want you having access to weapons and will take action to prevent it. I was one of the signatories to the snowdrop petition. I was also one of the scots who kicked every single tory MP out of scotland. the Dunblane massacre was one of the factors in that 1997 election and anger at a government that wouldn't listen.

As it happens I know lots of people that have guns, gamekeepers and the like , including high powered rifles for shooting deer. The hand gun ban bothers them not at all because they have little interest in shooting people. and a shotgun does a lot of damage anyway.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:11 am

i never said the gun ban made things worse....i said it was supposed to make it better but didnt

guns dont kill people.....people kill people

so are you now saying i have low self esteem cos of an interest in firearms?:rolleyes:.....i have no desire to 'carry' a firearm.......i was a target shooter...something that involves a lot of discipline.....owning handguns have nothing to do with 'shooting people'

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:21 am

beowulf;1308940 wrote: don't look cuddly to me..............................unless i can cuddle them at 1000 metres with a Barrett .50 :sneaky:

Israeli America bribes the Caucasian world to support American efforts to preserve Western Civilization by force of arms.

In many ways this is way funnier than that classic old American TV show "I Love Lucy."

Personally, I support Palestinian efforts to neuter the Zionist Apartheid policies in the Middle East. And I find it far more interesting to see the Islamic world kept viable as a counterpoint to the oppression of the Christian world.

I am a Pagan and don't like evangelistic religion at all, and find it useful only if there is a check and balance to it around to keep it's boots off the necks of people like me.

I want the Christian piranhas and Islamic crocodiles to stay busy worrying about each other enough so people like me can swim in the river in peace while they fight each other.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:32 am

beowulf;1309067 wrote: i never said the gun ban made things worse....i said it was supposed to make it better but didnt

guns dont kill people.....people kill people

so are you now saying i have low self esteem cos of an interest in firearms?:rolleyes:.....i have no desire to 'carry' a firearm.......i was a target shooter...something that involves a lot of discipline.....owning handguns have nothing to do with 'shooting people'

No of course not. But there are people who have an unhealthy fascination with weapons and are also mentally unstable. I feel the same way about people that fell the need to carry combat knives. Yes I know a kitchen knife is just as dangerous but someone who buys a commando knife to carry about is weird. I have austrian teenage relatives who habitually carry knives, they have real difficulty accepting that carrying one openly on a belt in a town centre will get them arrested in Scotland.

the ban was brought in after shootings were committed by unstable individuals with legally owned guns. The rise in gun crime is unconnected to the gun ban or lack of it but one thing for sure it hasn't made it worse. Allowing the free carrying of firearms will do nothing to curb it either. If it did america would be the least violent country on the planet.

I'm one of these people that were all in favour of a hand gun ban and I make no apology for it. It's unlikely we will agree.

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:35 am

Bored_Wombat;1309061 wrote: OTOH the US republican party seems to be constructed largely out of fundies.

Actually I would say the Repugs are controlled by Neocon fascists and Christian Zionists. A deadly mix of ugly that is destroying that party quite profoundly.

Ferret_annica · Post by **Ferret_annica** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:43 am

gmc;1309069 wrote:

I'm one of these people that were all in favour of a hand gun ban and I make no apology for it. It's unlikely we will agree.

I don't want the serfs disarmed. The powers that be don't need that drastic a comfort level in existence to more easily control and oppress people.

Guns are important tools to keep the very small minority that control way too much capital and property in check, and worried about hoe blatantly they put the boot of power and control on the neck of the worker class.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon May 10, 2010 5:02 am

hoppy;1308674 wrote: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online[/url]

The answer, of course, is "no", since the article from "The Daily Mail" is wrong. Many of the posts in this thread are therefore wide of the target.

There is, IMO, a need to re-think the law regarding .22 calibre pistols of Olympic competition standard only, however.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon May 10, 2010 5:08 am

Bored_Wombat;1308890 wrote: But for my part, I'm not worried about the political stability of the countries in which I live at the moment. I'm feel more fear from the judgement of 18,000 police each with a gun on their hip.

I am not sure how many UK police routinely carry guns. It is difficult to quantify the saving of life that has resulted from having armed police - I should think it might be nil, or negative.