When we outlaw guns...

[Nammy]

http://www.Little-Acorn.com/pics/gun_buyback00.jpg

The old bumper sticker still says it best: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I still smile tenderly at people who insist they only want the government to restrict guns a little. Or only ban certain "especially bad" ones. Or create just a few "gun free zones" around schools or churches or wherever. Or etc. History has shown over an over, that once you grant government the authority to put ANY restrictions on personal weapons, it tries over the ensuing years to put more and more, until private ownership or use is basically impossible. Except for those who disobey the law, of course. And every time, a new batch of do-gooders shows up, and insists that with them, it will be different.

Same goes for the ones who demand, "Why do you NEED such-and-such a gun?" These people don't seem to see any problem with a requirement to explain to some outside entity our reasons for wanting the ability to be armed, as a necessary condition to buy or own one.

Do these misnamed "gun buyback" programs actually reduce crime? Everyone has an opinion. But does anybody have any FACTS? Some study you can point to showing crime levels before and after a buyback program? Or anything similar?

And before you get huffy about the fact that the above "gun-buyback" program was voluntary, and not MANDATED by government, permit me to guide you back to the issue it illustrates: People without guns are vulnerable to predation by people who have them. The guy saw right away that the woman had money. But he didn't pull his gun on her until he was sure she didn't have hers any more.

Sure, she made her own choice to give up her gun. But when people have that choice taken away by government and are forced to do so, the lawbreakers can be even more sure their law-abiding victims are unarmed; and less inhibited about going after them.

[Rokerijdude11]

Register one

Bury 2

[Rokerijdude11]

funny how some threads dont get touched at all here


i wonder why that is?

[Think for myself]

As a flaming liberal who also happens to be a hunter I think that non hunting and non protection guns need to be banned.

[Rokerijdude11]

move to england then Boy

[Think for myself]

move to england then Boy

Why? I am an American. I have the right to own guns. When you can justify a weapon such as a MAC 10, then I may consider moving.

[Rokerijdude11]

your far too confused on this issue for me to further waste my time

[Think for myself]

your far too confused on this issue for me to further waste my time

I am truly sorry if I am wasting your time. I stated my case, and it was greeted by an insult.

Please explain to me why some one would need a MAC 10 to defend their home or hunt with. I am curious.

[Rokerijdude11]

what insult?
your wrong as usual
you stated you thought ALL weapons besides you Hunting rifles should be illegal....thats the law in Great Britain

go on and MOVE to a place that SUITS YOUR desires?

[Think for myself]

what insult?
your wrong as usual
you stated you thought ALL weapons besides you Hunting rifles should be illegal....thats the law in Great Britain

go on and MOVE to a place that SUITS YOUR desires?

I would suggest that you reread what i said. I stated that I think that all weapons that are not for home protection or hunting should be banned.

As for England, no, I'm staying here as I am an American.

[Rokerijdude11]

All guns that are for home protection and hunting........well that pretty well leave it wide open then eh? Im so sorry i forgot to type home protection in the sentance

your still confused my boy.....what gives YOU the right to determine what I may need for Home protection?

my second ammendmant rights give me the right to bear arms in order to keep a tyrannous Government from imposing its will upon the people the second ammendmant wasnt written for you hunters.......or for us to protect our homes

you need to re-learn why it was written and what purpose it serves as usual your mistaken

[Think for myself]

All guns that are for home protection and hunting........well that pretty well leave it wide open then eh? Im so sorry i forgot to type home protection in the sentance

your still confused my boy.....what gives YOU the right to determine what I may need for Home protection?

my second ammendmant rights give me the right to bear arms in order to keep a tyrannous Government from imposing its will upon the people the second ammendmant wasnt written for you hunters.......or for us to protect our homes

you need to re-learn why it was written and what purpose it serves as usual your mistaken

No, I think that I have a pretty good handle on the 2nd Ammendment. I own an 870 for duck hunting, a 30-06 for deer and pig hunting, and a .38 police special for home protection. Why would I need to own a Mac 10? Why should anyone?

[Rokerijdude11]

No, I think that I have a pretty good handle on the 2nd Ammendment. I own an 870 for duck hunting, a 30-06 for deer and pig hunting, and a .38 police special for home protection. Why would I need to own a Mac 10? Why should anyone?

well lets see sparky..what if you lived in an area of gang violence and drug trafficking where Gunshots are heard hourly? and lets say there was a riot......in your hood what the fock good is that lil peon .38 gonna do for you against roaming bands of gang members who are armed BETTER than law enforcement?
you dont think things through thats obvious your also young and naive

you display a half thought out flawwed logic the belies reality

[Think for myself]

well lets see sparky..what if you lived in an area of gang violence and drug trafficking where Gunshots are heard hourly? and lets say there was a riot......in your hood what the fock good is that lil peon .38 gonna do for you against roaming bands of gang members who are armed BETTER than law enforcement?
you dont think things through thats obvious your also young and naive

you display a half thought out flawwed logic the belies reality

Well, I'm 39, not exactly a child. I would expect that a person versed in the usage of firearms would be more than capable of taking care of themselves with a "lil peon" gun.

[Rokerijdude11]

and just how far against a tyrannous government is that >38 gonna help you to beat them off?

im sorry i dont believe you understand the 2nd ammendmant at all

[Rokerijdude11]

Well, I'm 39, not exactly a child. I would expect that a person versed in the usage of firearms would be more than capable of taking care of themselves with a "lil peon" gun.

Right I see...............because you are 39 that makes it so you can easily fend off gangs armed with mac 10s modified ar15's and ak47's .................yeah ok buddy

[Think for myself]

and just how far against a tyrannous government is that >38 gonna help you to beat them off?

im sorry i dont believe you understand the 2nd ammendmant at all

I fully understand the 2nd ammendment. What would the government do against every gun and gun onwer in this country?

[Think for myself]

Right I see...............because you are 39 that makes it so you can easily fend off gangs armed with mac 10s modified ar15's and ak47's .................yeah ok buddy

Um, yes. I feel very comfortable with my guns, along wioth firing them, as I have done so for my entire life.

[Rokerijdude11]

yeah ok pal

i can fire more rounds with one squeeze of the trigger than you could by reloading that crappy 38 3 times

a .38 ? a womans weapon says alot

[Abraxis Axis]

care to have an old fashioned show down?

you bring that womans weapon.....the .38

ill bring my Ar15.....any bets on who wins?

Btw i can break down my weapon and re-assemble it blindfolded in pouring rain..............in the mud and under fire and still come up firing

the .38 choice of gang members and theyr girlfriends

[9sublime]

I don't think your kidding anyone with your multiple profiles Roker, why doesn't Abraxis go on holiday and never come back or something?

Abraxis, your post is pathetic, who needs a showdown with whos got the biggest gun? This isn't the issue.

And don't you find it funny that America has a very high gun crime rate compared to the rest of the developed world, while it is one of the few to allow any nutter to possess a gun?

[USMC the Almighty]

Why? I am an American. I have the right to own guns. When you can justify a weapon such as a MAC 10, then I may consider moving.

The real question is why shouldn't people be allowed to have a MAC-10. The burden of proof doesn't lie with with the people, but with the government. That's what makes America's Founding Principles supreme, the fact that our inalienable rights come from the Creator, not the government.

Until you can provide me with evidence that the government can effectively ban MAC 10s in a fashion that will save the lives of innocents, then maybe I'll buy into it.

[9sublime]

Because a MAC 10 is an unnessecarily powerful and dangerous weapon to have in circulation.

[Rokerijdude11]

I don't think your kidding anyone with your multiple profiles Roker, why doesn't Abraxis go on holiday and never come back or something?

Abraxis, your post is pathetic, who needs a showdown with whos got the biggest gun? This isn't the issue.

And don't you find it funny that America has a very high gun crime rate compared to the rest of the developed world, while it is one of the few to allow any nutter to possess a gun?
You missed the point being made by Abraxis......thats because you are still fixated on him being me.......and cannot see beyond that

the man states that his .38 is enough self protection against whordes of gang members toting mac 10's and Ak47's this is seriously delusional thinking on his part
six shots and reload ....against an AK47?


give me a break

why dont you not worry so much about who is who eh limey?

[USMC the Almighty]

And don't you find it funny that America has a very high gun crime rate compared to the rest of the developed world, while it is one of the few to allow any nutter to possess a gun?

If gun control worked, then why would the police need guns? The fact is, it doesn't. It's impossible to keep arms out of criminals hands in today's world with the black market for weapons.

The only way to counteract this is to allow everyone carry a gun. Ultimately, it's a question of who you would rather have protect you: yourself or the government.

BTW -- I'm looking forward to your stats that display how America has "a very high gun crime rate compared to the rest of the developed world".

[Rokerijdude11]

he wont and cant understand he is British

[Think for myself]

yeah ok pal

i can fire more rounds with one squeeze of the trigger than you could by reloading that crappy 38 3 times

a .38 ? a womans weapon says alot

I'm sorry that your idea of a differention of the sexes is defined by caliber.

[USMC the Almighty]

Because a MAC 10 is an unnessecarily powerful and dangerous weapon to have in circulation.

You didn't answer the question. Prove to me, with hard evidence and support, that removing MAC 10s would make anyone safer.

I'll give you an easier task -- prove to me that removing automtic weapons makes anyone safer (except of course the criminals who acquired them illegally in Mexico).

[Abraxis Axis]

I don't think your kidding anyone with your multiple profiles Roker, why doesn't Abraxis go on holiday and never come back or something?

Abraxis, your post is pathetic, who needs a showdown with whos got the biggest gun? This isn't the issue.

And don't you find it funny that America has a very high gun crime rate compared to the rest of the developed world, while it is one of the few to allow any nutter to possess a gun?

can you say "Obsessed"? who cares ? Im american i dont go "on holiday" I take Vacation

[Think for myself]

he wont and cant understand he is British

How so? If that is intended to be an insult, I assure you I am not offended.

[9sublime]

If gun control worked, then why would the police need guns? The fact is, it doesn't. It's impossible to keep arms out of criminals hands in today's world with the black market of weapons.

The only way to counteract this is to allow everyone carry a gun. Ultimately, it's a question of who you would rather have protect you: yourself or the government.

BTW -- I'm looking forward to your stats that display how America has "a very high gun crime rate compared to the rest of the developed world".

The British police don't use guns. And Englands gun rate is very low, London probably being the worst.

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries.

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

Regardless, I'm not even saying we should ban guns, I think that the UK should permit certain guns for self protection. If you ban guns, only the outlaws have them. I'm just saying you don't really need a MAC 10

[9sublime]

How so? If that is intended to be an insult, I assure you I am not offended.

Are you British too? Well I think it was aimed at me... it was pretty a pretty shank insult to be fair, on par with calling me a limey.

[Think for myself]

Are you British too? Well I think it was aimed at me... it was pretty a pretty shank insult to be fair, on par with calling me a limey.

I am American, but I will agree. Not a very clever insult, much like those who insinuate that I am French for being against the war.

[USMC the Almighty]

How so? If that is intended to be an insult, I assure you I am not offended.

I know this isn't what Roker meant, but from my persepctive, Britain's government was set up in a fashion where the government owns the rights -- the federal gov't is the sovereign, and it loans these rights to the citizens.

The U.S.' Founders saw the inherent potential for tyranny (and indeed it came to fruition inside 200 years later) and so they created an entirely different model where the citizens is the sovereign, and he loans the power to the government to "provide for the common defense" and "maintain tranquility", etc.

Why this is significant is because Brits have a completely different outlook on the government/citizen relationship wherein the citizens have to justify maintaining their rights. In the U.S., the onus is on the goverment to justify why they are taking the rights away. Completely different model.

[Think for myself]

The real question is why shouldn't people be allowed to have a MAC-10. The burden of proof doesn't lie with with the people, but with the government. That's what makes America's Founding Principles supreme, the fact that our inalienable rights come from the Creator, not the government.

Until you can provide me with evidence that the government can effectively ban MAC 10s in a fashion that will save the lives of innocents, then maybe I'll buy into it.

You raise a valid point, and I thank you for that.

What possible purpose does a weapon like a Mac 10 serve, other than to kill people? I would not use that type of weapon for home defense, as it is poorly made, inaccurate, and unreliable. It is marketed at gangsters. I would prefer that gangsters remain unarmed.

[Think for myself]

I know this isn't what Roker meant, but from my persepctive, Britain's government was set up in a fashion where the government owns the rights -- the federal gov't is the sovereign, and it loans these rights to the citizens.

The U.S.' Founders saw the inherent potential for tyranny (and indeed it came to fruition inside 200 years later) and so they created an entirely different model where the citizens is the sovereign, and he loans the power to the government to "provide for the common defense" and "maintain tranquility", etc.

Why this is significant is because Brits have a completely different outlook on the government/citizen relationship wherein the citizens have to justify maintaining their rights. In the U.S., the onus is on the goverment to justify why they are taking the rights away. Completely different model.


An excellent point, which is why I am against banning guns, but regulating who can purchase and own them.

[USMC the Almighty]

Fair enough, Sublime, but consider these stats:

o Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. The following changes occurred from 1987 to 1996 in Florida: the homicide rate decreased by 36% and the handgun homicide rate decreased by 41%.

In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, economist John Lott and Bill Landes discovered the following:

o States that allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60% and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80%.

This all really does make sense. Are you going to attack a city or state that has a lot of guns or no guns? Even insane people prefer targets that can't shoot back. That's why schools and post offices are the two most common locations for mass shootings. Because people are prevented from carrying guns in these so-called "Gun Free Zones", so it essentially provides people bent on mass random murder a free opportunity to go on their rampage.

[9sublime]

In the UK I don't think the attitude of the people is at all justifying their rights. Maybe thats what it seems like to you from the US, but its not the case. We don't have something as clear cut as the first ammendment for our rights, but we still defend them and try and keep our right to privacy etc.

As for guns, answer this:

If your house is robbed in the UK, the chances of the intruder being armed is minimal, while the chances of a robber in the US being armed is high because of the legality of guns. Which is better, the two exchange fire or fists?

[USMC the Almighty]

You raise a valid point, and I thank you for that.

What possible purpose does a weapon like a Mac 10 serve, other than to kill people? I would not use that type of weapon for home defense, as it is poorly made, inaccurate, and unreliable. It is marketed at gangsters. I would prefer that gangsters remain unarmed.

I would prefer that gangsters remian unarmed as well, and that's why people who have a history of violence or gang activiites should not be allowed to purchase weapons. But law-abiding citizens with nothing more than a few traffic stops, should be allowed to get any gun they want pending the proper permits, psych tests, etc. unless the government can unequivocally prove that removing that gun from the citizens' hands will ultimately make them safer.

[USMC the Almighty]

An excellent point, which is why I am against banning guns, but regulating who can purchase and own them.

Exactly.

[Think for myself]

Exactly.

Fair enough. Start with enforcing the current laws.

[USMC the Almighty]

As for guns, answer this:

If your house is robbed in the UK, the chances of the intruder being armed is minimal, while the chances of a robber in the US being armed is high because of the legality of guns. Which is better, the two exchange fire or fists?

Then you have some very unresourceful intruders. Any idiot can get a gun illegally, so when you outlaw guns (as the thread contends), only outlaws have guns.

If I were to rob a house, I would most definitely prefer to rob one in the UK then the U.S. because of the almost guarantee that the one in the UK will be unarmed and therefore pose less resitance.

[9sublime]

I think it depends on the type of area you live in wether or not you are allowed to have a gun or not, especially the right to carry one.

As for shooting innocents if you're a nutter, these people wouldn't have the guns in the first place most of the time to do the shooting.

[9sublime]

Then you have some very unresourceful intruders. Any idiot can get a gun illegally, so when you outlaw guns (as the thread contends), only outlaws have guns.

Its actually much, much harder to get a gun in the UK compared to the US. There are very few armed robberies on homes, they only occur in banks and jewlers. The only real gun crime in the UK is on the estates of cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester.

[USMC the Almighty]

I think it depends on the type of area you live in wether or not you are allowed to have a gun or not, especially the right to carry one.



I disagree.

In a column titled “25 Years Murder-Free in 'Gun Town USA'”, the author describes how one Georgia town, being fed up with the skyrocketing crime rates, passed an ordinance that required each home to possess a weapon. Since then, 25 years murder free, despite dire predictions of “Wild West showdowns”.

Who in their right mind would choose to commit a crime in a town where every household is required to maintain a weapon, when they could instead go after places such as Illinois’ Morton Grove which banned guns for anyone not a member of the city’s police department (a city, which incidentally, experienced an increase in crime of 15.7% immediately following the ban).

[9sublime]

Most police in the UK don't carry guns, only SWAT-style units and airports (or other terrorist targets). When these coppers do fire them, they get on the national news.

They don't need to shoot because there are very few people in a situation where they have a gun and a firing back too.

I think that if you allow guns, it reduces crime, and if you ban guns, it reduces crime too. Its just that when you allow them, more people end up in hospital.

[USMC the Almighty]

Most police in the UK don't carry guns, only SWAT-style units and airports (or other terrorist targets). When these coppers do fire them, they get on the national news.

They don't need to shoot because there are very few people in a situation where they have a gun and a firing back too.

I think that if you allow guns, it reduces crime, and if you ban guns, it reduces crime too. Its just that when you allow them, more people end up in hospital.

That's fair and you've made a good argument. Ideologically, however, I will always trust myself for protection over the government, hence why I cherish my right to carry.

All for that one situation where I say to myself "I sure am glad I've got my gun with me."

I hope you're never in a situation where you say "****, I could really use that gun right now."

[9sublime]

I don't trust my government particularly, its ****ing incompetence is unbelievable, but I think everyone feels that about their government on certain issues. However, Blair is nothing but a big pile of spin with no balls and a fetish for George Bush.

However, I don't think I need a gun, I do trust the government to protect my life, even if the police can't retrive stolen goods or lock the ****ers up. What I do think I'm being robbed of most is my rights though by this government.

[USMC the Almighty]

What I do think I'm being robbed of most is my rights though by this government.

How about your income? I look at what you guys over there are taxed and I'm amazed that there hasn't been a revolution. Hell, the American colonists revolted in response to something like a 3% tax, while the Brits were being taxed 15%.

I guess it's just tradition. Americans have never found a tax they didn't want to avoid paying.

[Rokerijdude11]

How so? If that is intended to be an insult, I assure you I am not offended.

see what i mean? No sir it wasnt intended as an insult it was stated as a FACT your British....therefore in MY OPINION you can and NEVER will totally understand the Gun Control issues we face In America.....you simply dont have the experience in this because of your geographic locale and your governments stance on weapons

although recently i have actually seen Armed bobbies in the streets of London? whats up with that? seems they need the guns sometimes? and sometimes not? even the British dont know where to stand on gun control

[Rokerijdude11]

He's not British you moron. Try reading rather than ranting then getting banned. Its quite fulfilling.

As for armed police, we know what we need, and we change our laws accordingly, rather than sticking to a consitution (which has its benefits, although progression can be good too). I think police have always had the right to carry guns though. Do some research before you make a claim though matey.

I NEVER stated that your Bobbies DIDNT have the rights to carry guns did I?
No sir again more projection on your part i had forgotten how much you enjoyed projecting things that one never said.........what i wanted to know is why NOW after all these years do they carry guns? I have been travelling to the U.K since 1994 they didnt start carrying till 2000 ?

so why the change? because they NEED the weapons your Gun Ban hasnt worked has it?

[USMC the Almighty]

Roker, I wasn't by any means calling you out, but as soon as I first asked for the bickering to stop, both Sublime and Think respected my request and left the thread. You however, made 5 posts after I asked you guys to stop.

I'm not blaming you, Roker, I'm not saying it's your fault, but you have to stop when I ask you to stop.

I've temporarily locked this thread to remove the stuff unrelated to the thread title.

EDIT: I've reopened the thread after deleting the offending posts. Let's stay on topic...

[TruthAboveAll]

2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There are those who advocate gun control in some form. They use the actual verbage of the the 2nd to imply this is geared toward a "militia" which has grown and been replaced by our present day military. In some respects, that could be true.

However, the truest sense of this amendment is exactly as stated. We are to have an armed militia (military for common defense) for our national security and the individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Granted, arms in the days this was written was a far cry from the arms we have today. Our Bill of Rights resulted from (IMAGINE THIS!) a political dispute. One side was gravely concerned about having a standing army that was not under control of the people, and this amendment addressed both issues.

So, we have the militia (standing army) addressed, and at the same time acknowledging the right of the people to retain a method for exercising control if it were to get out of hand.

As gun control laws are passed in this country, every one of them edges us closer to the point that government will have complete and irrevocable control over us. And yes, if guns are outlawed entirely, the outlaws will have guns. The only real question would remain is how many normally peaceful, law-abiding Americans would be willing to become those "outlaws" for their self-protection and security, not just from the criminal element, but from a potential military-state government?

A note about England. Guns were only banned in 1997, but ownership restrictions had begun following WWI. The "interventionist state" in England increased, and had gradually placed more and more restrictions on ownership during the 1900's. In 1954 there were only a dozen armed robberies. By the 1990s, that number had increased 100 fold.

Amazingly, the increased controls on law abiding citizens accompanied increased leniency on criminals. (Sound familiar America?)

Then came the tragedy of the "Dunblane massacre", which left 16 school children and their teacher dead. 1997. The hysteria and sensationalism of this tragedy spring boarded the growing efforts to band guns entirely to the citizenry.

According to BBC reports, gun-related crimes went UP as much as 40% in the two years following the ban. Gun-related crimes have continued to increase in the years since. In 1997-1998, England (and Wales) had 12,805 firearm offenses. In 2005-2006, that number was 21,521.

In the meantime, the U.S. crime rates have decreased, and national homicide rates in particular have decreased. This is largely due to the many "protection" laws that we have passed. Many states have passed "right to carry" or concealed weapons permit laws. As cited in one of the earlier posts, we even have place(s) in this country where mandating gun ownership and maintenance has virtually eliminated crime, gun-related or otherwise.

Largely because of the Revolution of 1688 in England, the result was their own Bill of Rights and parliamentary democracy. Because of earlier attempts to suppress the Protestant religion partly via gun control, the right to bear arms was addressed for the English people.

Why is it that we humans for get so soon, and fail to learn from history?

[Think for myself]

2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There are those who advocate gun control in some form. They use the actual verbage of the the 2nd to imply this is geared toward a "militia" which has grown and been replaced by our present day military. In some respects, that could be true.

However, the truest sense of this amendment is exactly as stated. We are to have an armed militia (military for common defense) for our national security and the individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Granted, arms in the days this was written was a far cry from the arms we have today. Our Bill of Rights resulted from (IMAGINE THIS!) a political dispute. One side was gravely concerned about having a standing army that was not under control of the people, and this amendment addressed both issues.

So, we have the militia (standing army) addressed, and at the same time acknowledging the right of the people to retain a method for exercising control if it were to get out of hand.

As gun control laws are passed in this country, every one of them edges us closer to the point that government will have complete and irrevocable control over us. And yes, if guns are outlawed entirely, the outlaws will have guns. The only real question would remain is how many normally peaceful, law-abiding Americans would be willing to become those "outlaws" for their self-protection and security, not just from the criminal element, but from a potential military-state government?

A note about England. Guns were only banned in 1997, but ownership restrictions had begun following WWI. The "interventionist state" in England increased, and had gradually placed more and more restrictions on ownership during the 1900's. In 1954 there were only a dozen armed robberies. By the 1990s, that number had increased 100 fold.

Amazingly, the increased controls on law abiding citizens accompanied increased leniency on criminals. (Sound familiar America?)

Then came the tragedy of the "Dunblane massacre", which left 16 school children and their teacher dead. 1997. The hysteria and sensationalism of this tragedy spring boarded the growing efforts to band guns entirely to the citizenry.

According to BBC reports, gun-related crimes went UP as much as 40% in the two years following the ban. Gun-related crimes have continued to increase in the years since. In 1997-1998, England (and Wales) had 12,805 firearm offenses. In 2005-2006, that number was 21,521.

In the meantime, the U.S. crime rates have decreased, and national homicide rates in particular have decreased. This is largely due to the many "protection" laws that we have passed. Many states have passed "right to carry" or concealed weapons permit laws. As cited in one of the earlier posts, we even have place(s) in this country where mandating gun ownership and maintenance has virtually eliminated crime, gun-related or otherwise.

Largely because of the Revolution of 1688 in England, the result was their own Bill of Rights and parliamentary democracy. Because of earlier attempts to suppress the Protestant religion partly via gun control, the right to bear arms was addressed for the English people.

Why is it that we humans for get so soon, and fail to learn from history?

I don't blindly accept statistics. Please provide a link.

[TruthAboveAll]

I don't blindly accept statistics. Please provide a link.
The information I found is readily available via internet searches:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

[Think for myself]

The information I found is readily available via internet searches:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

I will buy the first citation, but the other two are op-ed. Well done.

[Lindsay]

Why doesn't the world just eliminate all guns completely? Because as we know, flowers ARE better than bullets.

[9sublime]

What kind of fantasy world do you live in.

[USMC the Almighty]

Why doesn't the world just eliminate all guns completely?

Now please explain how you'd go about doing that? It's silly to say that guns are the source of crimes. Guns don't pull the trigger, they are merely used as means for carrying out violence -- they don't cause violence.

Before there were guns, millions were killed by sword...

[OPGhostdog]

I believe that a person has the rights to bare a firearm to protect
his or her values. However to carry a gun just because of the power
shows cowardness. Fire power will NEVER get banned throughout the
world. In Wars many unarmed civilians is shot to death, and GUNS
don't make a Man.

As far as rifles I support having one of them, but they are suppose
to be used for hunting according to the NRA, and the law has made
them legal to protect the home...Not hurt or hunt people.

[TruthAboveAll]

I will buy the first citation, but the other two are op-ed. Well done.
I'm a bit confused. You accept the BBC news article, but reject the Wikipedia information, and the data on firearm offenses?

I understand that Wikipedia is subject to "editing", but that was relating to the information on England's Bill of Rights, and some historic parameters. Under very extreme classification I guess this could be considered op-ed.

The data on the firearm offenses was published by a group called Gun Control Network, but oddly, their objective is to work towards banning firearms. Their cited statistics, showing the increase in gun-related crimes since the 1997 absolute restrictions in England occurred, are numbers obtained from a Home Office Statistical Bulletin, a document by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. I'm from the U.S., and not intimately familiar with the governmental entities, but this appears to be part of the British government. I fail to see how you would consider this an op-ed piece.

Here is the link to that one, too: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

[Lindsay]

What kind of fantasy world do you live in.

It's a magical one. You're always on a trip and only see the goodness in others. It's when the trip ends that you see the world for what it really is.

[9sublime]

It's a magical one. You're always on a trip and only see the goodness in others. It's when the trip ends that you see the world for what it really is.

I would love to see all guns banned, it would be a great day, but it wouldn't work. I think guns are horrible things to use on other living things, but very occasionally its neccessary, and human nature also gets in the way.

Its a nice dream, but I prefer to discuss fesable politics on here.

[Lindsay]

I would love to see all guns banned, it would be a great day, but it wouldn't work. I think guns are horrible things to use on other living things, but very occasionally its neccessary, and human nature also gets in the way.

Its a nice dream, but I prefer to discuss fesable politics on here.

I love that you said "living things" as opposed to just "humans".

[9sublime]

Yes, because I don't agree with pointlessly shooting lots of animals. However, there is often a need to cull rabbits, foxes etc. and if they are going to die, you might as well satisfy someones human nature and let them shoot the thing with a gun.

[Lindsay]

Right on.

[9sublime]

I hope thats genuine agreement, I haven't got my sarcasm recognizer fitted on my PC yet.

[Think for myself]

I'm a bit confused. You accept the BBC news article, but reject the Wikipedia information, and the data on firearm offenses?

I understand that Wikipedia is subject to "editing", but that was relating to the information on England's Bill of Rights, and some historic parameters. Under very extreme classification I guess this could be considered op-ed.

The data on the firearm offenses was published by a group called Gun Control Network, but oddly, their objective is to work towards banning firearms. Their cited statistics, showing the increase in gun-related crimes since the 1997 absolute restrictions in England occurred, are numbers obtained from a Home Office Statistical Bulletin, a document by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. I'm from the U.S., and not intimately familiar with the governmental entities, but this appears to be part of the British government. I fail to see how you would consider this an op-ed piece.

Here is the link to that one, too: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf


You are correct. The BBC, for all of it's faults, I accept as a legitimate news agency. Your reference to that article was excellent, and I certainly concede to you on the point made.

Wikipedia is useful, but not necessarily 100% factual as I doubt the editors are masters of objectiveness.

A statstic publish by a group with an agenda, be it pro or anti any given debate, I always suspect.

Again, my hat is off to you for proving your point.

[Lindsay]

I hope thats genuine agreement, I haven't got my sarcasm recognizer fitted on my PC yet.

It was genuine agreement. I'm an animal rights activist, and it pleased me to hear someone recognize all living things and not just humans alone.

[TruthAboveAll]

You are correct. The BBC, for all of it's faults, I accept as a legitimate news agency. Your reference to that article was excellent, and I certainly concede to you on the point made.

Wikipedia is useful, but not necessarily 100% factual as I doubt the editors are masters of objectiveness.

A statstic publish by a group with an agenda, be it pro or anti any given debate, I always suspect.

Again, my hat is off to you for proving your point.

Why thank you, Think. I strive VERY hard to substantiate information. Not to say I can't be wrong, but I try to test everything I hear or see, to the best of my ability. Facts can and should be substantiated as much as possible. Opinions, beliefs and perspectives are another matter...;)

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes, because I don't agree with pointlessly shooting lots of animals. However, there is often a need to cull rabbits, foxes etc. and if they are going to die, you might as well satisfy someones human nature and let them shoot the thing with a gun.

I curious then, 9sublime, since it's necessary to cull/execute people for heinous crimes, should we pander to the very real human desire for revenge and let the victim or the victim's family members pull the switch? Or would it be reasonable in these tight fiscal times to sell a "tag" that entitles the owner to pull the switch on some scumbag--how much could the government have gotten for a tag to pull the switch on Saddam?

[9sublime]

I curious then, 9sublime, since it's necessary to cull/execute people for heinous crimes, should we pander to the very real human desire for revenge and let the victim or the victim's family members pull the switch? Or would it be reasonable in these tight fiscal times to sell a "tag" that entitles the owner to pull the switch on some scumbag--how much could the government have gotten for a tag to pull the switch on Saddam?

Um, I'm actually against capital punishment.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Um, I'm actually against capital punishment.

Yeah, me too, I just extend that distaste for murder to all sentient beings.

If I did believe in "culling" then I would, without a doubt, start with the one group of creatures on this planet that need culling the most: humans.

[vyo476]

Yeah, me too, I just extend that distaste for murder to all sentient beings.

If I did believe in "culling" then I would, without a doubt, start with the one group of creatures on this planet that need culling the most: humans.

Look out folks, we've got ourselves an Eco-Nazi!

[9sublime]

Its wether or not you believe in dominion or stewardship. I believe we should do a lot to look after the earth and the rest of its inhabitants, not causing unneccessary slaughter/pain etc.

Humans can be the worst animals of them all. But, I still favour us over anything else.

A lion is attacking you, do you let it kill you or the police shoot it?

[TruthAboveAll]

Yeah, me too, I just extend that distaste for murder to all sentient beings.

If I did believe in "culling" then I would, without a doubt, start with the one group of creatures on this planet that need culling the most: humans.

"Sentient" typically applies to those with a perceptive consciousness. In a lose sense, it can apply to any living creature with feelings. I do believe that nearly every living being has some level of the sensation of feeling. Okay, maybe I'll exclude mosquitoes and deer flies from that... :D

*IF* you did believe in culling, and *If* you were to start with humans, how would you qualify those most deserving? By race? Color? Political belief? Religious belief? Country of residence? Age? Eye color? Physical attractiveness? Voice modulation? Dental hygiene?

[vyo476]

Physical attractiveness?

I'm screwed.

[TruthAboveAll]

Its wether or not you believe in dominion or stewardship. I believe we should do a lot to look after the earth and the rest of its inhabitants, not causing unneccessary slaughter/pain etc.

Humans can be the worst animals of them all. But, I still favour us over anything else.

A lion is attacking you, do you let it kill you or the police shoot it?

Just wanted to say that in my view dominion and stewardship are not mutually exclusive concepts. Because I'm a Christian, and I believe that we are created by God :eek: I believe that we have a superior position in the world. We are placed in dominion over it, but that dominion requires a benevolent stewardship over it. I want the world to be as clean and nice a place, with as many creatures and beauty to be there to be enjoyed by my great grandchildren. And THEIR great grandchildren.

I agree with you regarding the unnecessary slaughter, pain or cruelty, and that humans can be the worst. The flip side of our sentience is that when corrupted, our cruelty and barbarism can surpass the most vicious wild beast.

If a lion were attacking me, if I was unable to defend myself, then heck yes! I'd want the police to shoot it!

[Mare Tranquillity]

Look out folks, we've got ourselves an Eco-Nazi!

It's kind of funny (pecu) to be called an eco-nazi, I've been called a terrorist too. In a discussion about sadism, killing for pleasure, I was the only person who owned no weapons and was advocating for non-violence, but somehow I got labeled a "terrorist" for that. Seriously twisted thinking!

[Mare Tranquillity]

Its wether or not you believe in dominion or stewardship. I believe we should do a lot to look after the earth and the rest of its inhabitants, not causing unneccessary slaughter/pain etc.

Humans can be the worst animals of them all. But, I still favour us over anything else.

A lion is attacking you, do you let it kill you or the police shoot it?

Since it was somewhat ambiguous as to whom you were addressing, I'll answer the question. My personal philosophy is "Harm none". So far it's worked quite well, in cases where harm is being done, then one tries to minimize it. A lion in a crowd of people should probably be killed if it's causing trouble.

There is so much suffering in the world that I feel it behooves me to try to reduce it if I can, but certainly not ADD to it unless absolutely necessary. I don't require, expect, or even ask anyone else to live as I do. How do I become the terrorist/eco-nazi?

[Mare Tranquillity]

"Sentient" typically applies to those with a perceptive consciousness. In a lose sense, it can apply to any living creature with feelings. I do believe that nearly every living being has some level of the sensation of feeling. Okay, maybe I'll exclude mosquitoes and deer flies from that... :D

*IF* you did believe in culling, and *If* you were to start with humans, how would you qualify those most deserving? By race? Color? Political belief? Religious belief? Country of residence? Age? Eye color? Physical attractiveness? Voice modulation? Dental hygiene?

Violence.

[9sublime]

I don't think you are at all.

I think that the animal rights activitsts who dig up old womens bones over here about gerbils getting chemicals tested in their eyes are terrorists (true story), or the over zealous protesters in Oxford who scream at you when you tell them you don't care for a leaflet you've been given 10 times over with some chimp behind bars. However, they are obviously a very small minority, and 99% of animal rights protesters have their heart in the right place and I'm against animal cruelty too.