GunControl

[robin]

Robin writes
If you are happy with being unarmed and defenseless and at the mercy of whatever in the U.K., that's great. Maybe your risk isn't as great as those living in inner city Detroit or East L.A. or East St. Louis or Dallas, but whatever it is you seem content to accept it.

Yes our risk is no where near as great as yours, theres' a tenth the chance in the UK of getting shot or less even than that, becuase we don't have your lax 'any scumbag can go buy a gun' type gun laws. You don't seem to get it do you !
Which would you rather have... your situation where you are so insecure you have to carry a gun... or peace of mind knowing that virtually no one has a gun so you don't need to worry about arming yourself ?
I know which I prefer.
Your gun laws, or should I say lack of gun laws, are only of benefit to those that want to shoot people & commit armed fellony.
It is you sir that are at the mercy of gunmen... not I.

 

[superskippy]

I have never understood why there is an enormous rate of gun crimes in America, it exceed's the rates for the most heavily armed populaces on earth, and is in equavalent to nations in South America.

Yet don't try and paint me as anti-gun, I'm all for gun onwership in regards to the law's of the land. I just think maybe some reform's are needed, such as limited amount's of firearm's allowed to be cached? Do people really need a personal arsenal?

 

[KevinWan]

Yes our risk is no where near as great as yours, theres' a tenth the chance in the UK of getting shot or less even than that, becuase we don't have your lax 'any scumbag can go buy a gun' type gun laws. You don't seem to get it do you !
Which would you rather have... your situation where you are so insecure you have to carry a gun... or peace of mind knowing that virtually no one has a gun so you don't need to worry about arming yourself ?
I know which I prefer.
Your gun laws, or should I say lack of gun laws, are only of benefit to those that want to shoot people & commit armed fellony.
It is you sir that are at the mercy of gunmen... not I.

These LACK OF gun laws benefit people you must never have heard of, living in the UK - they're called HUNTERS. I suscribe to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" theory. I'm not willing to take away the rights to own a hunting rifle, or a pistol for personal security, to appease some lunatic who wants to kill people.

 

[KevinWan]

Yeah but it's always the evil ba5tards that take power by force of arms, so I don't think you should make it any easier for them to have arms.

Did Hitler take charge by force of arms? NO... he was democratically elected, and then removed guns. etc.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

These LACK OF gun laws benefit people you must never have heard of, living in the UK - they're called HUNTERS. I suscribe to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" theory. I'm not willing to take away the rights to own a hunting rifle, or a pistol for personal security, to appease some lunatic who wants to kill people.

Where the hell does appeasement come in?

What would you think about gun registration?

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

Do you think there should be any restrictions at all when it comes to firearms?

 

[robin]

Farmers are permitted to have shotguns under license in UK. To my knowledge hunting rifles are not permitted.
Let me explain again, thanks to our gun laws in the UK we don't have to worry about some scum bag shooting us. We don't feel so insecure as to have to carry guns to defend ourselves becuase gun wielding low life are virtually non existent in the UK.
That means our country is a far far safer place to live & all becuase guns are so well controlled as the deterrant of 5 years in prison for illegal possesion to anyone that wants to carry an off ticket gun is such that even low life don't bother with them.

I think that is better than your blood soaked US streets... got that ?... it's better !
End of discussion. If that's too complex for you then you deserve your liberal loony gun laws !
Incidently.. it's interesting that Navy Pride of all people supports your liberal loony gun laws :lol:
Wouldn't it be better if you simply didn't need to worry about defending yourself in the first place against gun toting low life ?
Well all you need is our gun laws then.

 

[KevinWan]

Farmers are permitted to have shotguns under license in UK. To my knowledge hunting rifles are not permitted.
Let me explain again, thanks to our gun laws in the UK we don't have to worry about some scum bag shooting us. We don't feel so insecure as to have to carry guns to defend ourselves becuase gun wielding low life are virtually non existent in the UK.
That means our country is a far far safer place to live & all becuase guns are so well controlled as the deterrant of 5 years in prison for illegal possesion to anyone that wants to carry an off ticket gun is such that even low life don't bother with them.

I think that is better than your blood soaked US streets... got that ?... it's better !
End of discussion. If that's too complex for you then you deserve your liberal loony gun laws !
Incidently.. it's interesting that Navy Pride of all people supports your liberal loony gun laws :lol:
Wouldn't it be better if you simply didn't need to worry about defending yourself in the first place against gun toting low life ?
Well all you need is our gun laws then.

Guns can protect against other kinds of violence other than gun violence. Roberies, knifes, rape?? Strict gun laws aren't going to eliminate those things. A gun, however, can potentially lessen and/or prevent them.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Guns can protect against other kinds of violence other than gun violence. Roberies, knifes, rape?? Strict gun laws aren't going to eliminate those things. A gun, however, can potentially lessen and/or prevent them.

Stun guns and pepper spray can deter roberies, knives, and rape.

 

[ElGringo17]

Ghandi,

Careful lest people think you're a fool.....


Pepper spray doesn't always work
Pepper spray requires that the assailant be too close for safety
Pepper spray may affect the defendant
Pepper spray has a quite limited range

Stun guns require that one be in contact with your assailant, an incredibly foolhardy requirement

 

[ElGringo17]

Robin,


You crack me up....you suggest that those in the UK don't need firearms because most criminals don't use firearms in teh UK....

Oh, if I were a woman I would feel SOOOOOOOO much better about getting raped by a thug, as long as he used a knife, smashed my skull with a pipe or bat or just beat me senseless with his fists..

I bet the people on the subway felt safe when those people who blew them to smithereens did so with just explosives instead of firearms....

Oh, wait a minute, are explosive backpacks legal in the UK? They must be, otherwise terrorists wouldn't have used them.....they would have found some legal means of killing people.

 

[C.J.]

Stun guns and pepper spray can deter roberies, knives, and rape.

When using non-lethal force against lethal force or an overwhelmingly superior opponent, the victim had better be damned lucky.

 

[C.J.]

Give me an example of a country where bad guys tried to take over but were overthrown by good guys in the civilian population becuase they had guns.
Thanks to our strict gun controls there are not enough guns in the UK for the bad guys ever to overthrow our military & our military answer to our democratically elected politicians.

Show me a country which is as armed as ours, where the need has arisen. Then look at countries with an unarmed populous, where the converse occured.

There are not enough guns here to overthrow the military either, and the point is what?

BTW, your request still doesn't follow the line.

 

[robin]

Show me a country which is as armed as ours, where the need has arisen. Then look at countries with an unarmed populous, where the converse occured.
There are not enough guns here to overthrow the military either, and the point is what?
BTW, your request still doesn't follow the line.

Someone else brought up the armed populus v the government crap. I'm not interested in all that wild conjecture... WTF
The issue is... THERE IS A 911 DEATH TOLL EVERY ****ING MONTH IN THE USA BECUASE OF YOUR LAX GUN CONTROLS. 40,0000 people a year dead becuase guns are so freely available in the states. You have more than ten times the death rate per capita that we have in the UK becuase we have strict gun controls but you do not.
If you want to defend your lax laws then do so, but I don't want to hear it anymore.
You've gone into Iraq supposedly to fight terror, to save US lives, yet it's not the country to blame for 911, yet you defend gun laws that take a 911 death toll every month. Iraq war $250,000,000,000 cost & 1850 US soldiers dead & 13,000 wounded or maimed & 25,000 Iraqis dead. So it's not even saving US lives. It's cost 1850 US lives. You are bonkers !
If you want to save US lives then control your guns... it's that simple.
I'm not wasting anymore time on this.
There seem to be two types of Americans.
Type one = quite sensible & analytical & Type two = ****ing dumb !

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

When using non-lethal force against lethal force or an overwhelmingly superior opponent, the victim had better be damned lucky.

You don't have to be that lucky at all. In the scenario mentioned we were discussing where there was no gun involved. An unarmed robber vs. a big dog/stun gun/pepper spray can/baseball bat doesn't have much of a chance.

 

[C.J.]

Farmers are permitted to have shotguns under license in UK. To my knowledge hunting rifles are not permitted.
Let me explain again, thanks to our gun laws in the UK we don't have to worry about some scum bag shooting us. We don't feel so insecure as to have to carry guns to defend ourselves becuase gun wielding low life are virtually non existent in the UK.

Virtually non existant covers a lot of ground. For instance gun crimes in G.B. have been increasing at a rate of approximately 30% every five years. Approximately 5,000 firearms crimes last year. This shows that somehow, even with all the restrictions, approximately 5,000 bad guys acquired firearms last year, a few less the year before, etc.

That means our country is a far far safer place to live & all becuase guns are so well controlled as the deterrant of 5 years in prison for illegal possesion to anyone that wants to carry an off ticket gun is such that even low life don't bother with them.

Sorry, it's not safer when all violent crimes are considered. According to the BJS, (In a 15 year study that is a few years old). rather than quote it, you can read it at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96a.pdf

I think that is better than your blood soaked US streets... got that ?... it's better !

First off the 40,000 you mention is off, it's less than 30,000. Secondly remove the suicides from the figure and the "streets" now become 56% less bloody, as most people do not commit suicide on the streets.

End of discussion. If that's too complex for you then you deserve your liberal loony gun laws !

A little slam and emotion makes things more interesting.

Incidently.. it's interesting that Navy Pride of all people supports your liberal loony gun laws :lol:

Why???

Wouldn't it be better if you simply didn't need to worry about defending yourself in the first place against gun toting low life ?
Well all you need is our gun laws then.

With the high (Higher than ours for most violent crimes), and rising violent crime rate in BB, and ours getting lower, It may be a bit premature to change things. Bet you didn't know that LA county alone has more non firearms related murders than GB does did you??? Just a little thing to think about when looking at differences between countries and cultures.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You don't have to be that lucky at all. In the scenario mentioned we were discussing where there was no gun involved. An unarmed robber vs. a big dog/stun gun/pepper spray can/baseball bat doesn't have much of a chance.

Most big dogs can be bribed with food, some people are so tough or persistent that pepper spray will slow them down and delay the inevitable assault, and baseball bats while particularly effective at close range can be taken away from the possesor(yes guns can be too), however with a gun even the most persistent assailants realize that their stubbornness towards causing said harm won't matter when faced from injury or death from afar, most of the time, when a gun is drawn there is no reason to use it, it stands as a deterrent on it's own, of course there are the occasional idiots, but using the gun accomplishes the same end, ultimately the possesor is protected.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Most big dogs can be bribed with food, some people are so tough or persistent that pepper spray will slow them down and delay the inevitable assault, and baseball bats while particularly effective at close range can be taken away from the possesor(yes guns can be too), however with a gun even the most persistent assailants realize that their stubbornness towards causing said harm won't matter when faced from injury or death from afar, most of the time, when a gun is drawn there is no reason to use it, it stands as a deterrent on it's own, of course there are the occasional idiots, but using the gun accomplishes the same end, ultimately the possesor is protected.

And a stun gun? Can't be bribed with food, and it doesn't matter how big you are because one way or another you have a central nervous system that just happens to be extremely receptive to electricity.

 

[C.J.]

You don't have to be that lucky at all. In the scenario mentioned we were discussing where there was no gun involved. An unarmed robber vs. a big dog/stun gun/pepper spray can/baseball bat doesn't have much of a chance.

I believe the scenario above included at least one weapon, a knife, and did not specify an unarmed bad guy. Regardless an unarmed underpowered robber would likely not belong to the bad guy society very long. Bad guys, even if stupid provide for what they see as an advantage. I can tell you from first hand experience that pepper spray is a complete waste of money and effort on approximately 10% of those sprayed, and if on drugs more than that. Wasp and Hornet spray is 100% effective in someones eyes, but for some reason the bad guys and their attorneys raise hell about it. A baseball bat??? It can be effective, especially when it is visible before an attack and a bad guy takes it from you and beats you senseless. Dogs are great, and most bad guys would avoid them, but you can't always have your dog with you.

 

[LaMidRighter]

And a stun gun? Can't be bribed with food, and it doesn't matter how big you are because one way or another you have a central nervous system that just happens to be extremely receptive to electricity.

Stun guns can still kill, and most models available for civilian usage have an up-close range, so it's effectiveness depends on whether or not you actually get to use it.

 

[C.J.]

And a stun gun? Can't be bribed with food, and it doesn't matter how big you are because one way or another you have a central nervous system that just happens to be extremely receptive to electricity.

Actually the effectiveness of a stun gun depends on the particular gun model, the attacker's body size and his determination, and don't forget certain drugs. Additionally with multiple unarmed attackers, one must be very lucky, and against an armed attacker one must be very stupid to try to use it.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Stun guns can still kill, and most models available for civilian usage have an up-close range, so it's effectiveness depends on whether or not you actually get to use it.

Stun guns can kill only if the user doesn't know how to use one and gets a little crazy with the trigger or the person getting "stunned" has some sort of cardiovascular problem.

While there are upclose models(as in point blank) there are some that can reach up to 15 feet! The other advantage of a taser/stun gun/stun baton is everything is an effective target zone.

 

[C.J.]

Stun guns can kill only if the user doesn't know how to use one and gets a little crazy with the trigger or the person getting "stunned" has some sort of cardiovascular problem.

While there are upclose models(as in point blank) there are some that can reach up to 15 feet! The other advantage of a taser/stun gun/stun baton is everything is an effective target zone.

There has been approximately 150 deaths after being hit with just one brand (Taser). Some were jolted once, some twice and some 3 or more times because they would not cease their actions. Some were on drugs or medication, some were not and some were obviously otherwise healthy. In some the device was the cause of death, and in some they were a contributor to the death. All were jolted by people trained in their use, and the multiple hits seemingly indicate the devices do not always do their job. There have also been many injuries, some severe, and some resulting in paralysis, including at least one quadriplegic. Some police departments have quit using them due to the dangers. There really isn't enough information available yet to make any type of determination on their lethality.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

There has been approximately 150 deaths after being hit with just one brand (Taser). Some were jolted once, some twice and some 3 or more times because they would not cease their actions. Some were on drugs or medication, some were not and some were obviously otherwise healthy. In some the device was the cause of death, and in some they were a contributor to the death. All were jolted by people trained in their use, and the multiple hits seemingly indicate the devices do not always do their job. There have also been many injuries, some severe, and some resulting in paralysis, including at least one quadriplegic. Some police departments have quit using them due to the dangers. There really isn't enough information available yet to make any type of determination on their lethality.

150 out of how many people stunned?

While we may not currently be able to "make any type of determination on their lethality," I think it's safe to say that their lethality is much lower than that of a firearm.

 

[C.J.]

150 out of how many people stunned?.

That I have no data on.

I think it's safe to say that their lethality is much lower than that of a firearm.

Certainly, but so is their effectiveness.

 

[Busta]

I love this topic.
The purpose of the second amendment is to keep the government in check and, when the inevitable nicecity becomes present, overthroe the government.
Stun guns will not keep the government in check.
I believe in registration but not restriction.