Give me a gun!

[Skyrad 0]

The reason that firearms were taken away from the legal owners was a cheap government ploy to appease a overly hysterical public after the Hungerford shootings. It was a ill thoughtout knee jerk reaction to public hysteria whipped up by a powerful tabloid culture.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[juanesky 0]

And if this is not a troll, then what made you change your mind? Is it the crime figures or is it that you realize that basically the right sto self defence is heavily regulated and with the possibility to send you to jail?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Kerr 0]

Quote

The reason that firearms were taken away from the legal owners was a cheap government ploy to appease a overly hysterical public after the Hungerford shootings.

Although there was tightening of the regulations after the Hungerford shootings, the handgun ban came after the Dunblane shootings. I'd agree that it was a cheap government ploy though.

--
Kerr

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Just out of interest, which UK parties advocate reverting back to our previous stance on gun ownership?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I can't wait to see how this works out.

"Too much drinking going on? Leave the bars open longer!!"

Well, for some one who moved from a far more open society to a more closed one, when it comes to drinking, drug use and sex, it really isn't that odd of a thought.

Growing up in Holland, where social drinking and marijuana and seuxla images are not as strictly controlled as in North America it was odd for me to find the follwoing:

1. I know more people who smoke dope in Canada and the US than I do in Holland. Even though i spent 24 years in Holland, including high school and university.

2. The concept of drinking for no other reason than to get drunk was completely foreign to me, until I came to Canada and the US on a frequent basis.

3. Compare rates of teen pregnancy between the two countries.

With that in mind, the concept of educating and not restricting is not that bizarre. I have certainly found, that the more you tell people they are not allowed to do something, the bigger the attraction to actually go and do that.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Compare rates of teen pregnancy between the two countries. "

No sooner said than done, although some may question the validity of the source.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_tee_bir_rat

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kerr 0]

Quote

Just out of interest, which UK parties advocate reverting back to our previous stance on gun ownership?

I don't think that any political parties are calling for a change in the current regs.

Personally I thought that the new restrictions of '97 were unnecessary and I'd like to see a return to the regulations we had before that. As I understand it, had the police done there job properly given those regulations, Thomas Hamilton would not have had a firearms licence.

--
Kerr

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the concept of educating and not restricting is not that bizarre. I have certainly found, that the more you tell people they are not allowed to do something, the bigger the attraction to actually go and do that.

So why don't you apply that same philosophy to gun ownership? Instead of trying to ban or restrict guns, how about providing free gun safety education to anyone who wants it, including as part of a child's public education?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Personally I thought that the new restrictions of '97 were unnecessary and I'd like to see a return to the regulations we had before that. As I understand it, had the police done there job properly given those regulations, Thomas Hamilton would not have had a firearms licence.

Correct! But it's much easier when hunting down a bogeyman to blame, to take guns away from an innocent minority of people, then it is to blame an entrenched and powerful political interest.

Then everyone can sit back and smile contentedly, while saying; "There! We did something about gun violence! Woohoo!"

That smugness lasts only until the crime reports keep coming out, showing continuing increases in murder and gun crime. And that's where they are now.

But of course, they'll never admit that the gun ban was a useless effort. Nope, that would be admitting a mistake. Instead, they'll just cry; "We didn't go far enough!" Then they'll move to ban all the single-shot firearms still allowed, air rifles, and replica guns.

The nonsense from anti-gun folks just never ends.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally I thought that the new restrictions of '97 were unnecessary and I'd like to see a return to the regulations we had before that. As I understand it, had the police done there job properly given those regulations, Thomas Hamilton would not have had a firearms licence.

Correct! But it's much easier when hunting down a bogeyman to blame, to take guns away from an innocent minority of people, then it is to blame an entrenched and powerful political interest.

Then everyone can sit back and smile contentedly, while saying; "There! We did something about gun violence! Woohoo!"

That smugness lasts only until the crime reports keep coming out, showing continuing increases in murder and gun crime. And that's where they are now.

But of course, they'll never admit that the gun ban was a useless effort. Nope, that would be admitting a mistake. Instead, they'll just cry; "We didn't go far enough!" Then they'll move to ban all the single-shot firearms still allowed, air rifles, and replica guns.

The nonsense from anti-gun folks just never ends.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"That smugness lasts only until the crime reports keep coming out, showing continuing increases in murder and gun crime. And that's where they are now."

Okay guys just to keep things fair and balanced, the above would represent your opinion, which is to be respected.

The following represents a fact.....
"The number of crimes recorded by the police decreased by 5 per cent between 2002 and 2003"
Source....http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00338-03.asp
Of course, I can only speak for my own country, crime figures for England and Wales might be different.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

I agree with you entirely about the 97 ban. It was pointless, it wasn’t required and all that was required was better enforcement of the then regulations. That is still my stance on gun crime – that all is required is better enforcement of the current regulations; not more legislation, and certainly not giving people the option to conceal carry.

I still cannot agree that gun crime went up [I]because[/I] of the 97 ban. Of course there is a rise in [I]some[/I] of the figures, no one is going to dispute that, but I cannot agree on a link in causality. This was discussed ad nauseum a couple of weeks ago; I presume you were away for a while as you weren’t involved in those discussions. It might be worth checking out a couple of the threads before we start yet another one on the same subject.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So why don't you apply that same philosophy to gun ownership? Instead of trying to ban or restrict guns, how about providing free gun safety education to anyone who wants it, including as part of a child's public education?

I know you are not going to like this, but, to me they are somewhat different issues.

It would be an interesting experiment to just let everyone have any kind of gun they wanted and let them carry it wherever they want.

Am happy I am not in the country most likely to do that. Funny enough, some countries around the world do operate that way, they are the same countries the US seems to have the most problems with.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Funny enough, some countries around the world do operate that way, they are the same countries the US seems to have the most problems with.
____________________________

That's so true, especially since all of those countries are 1st world countries that have no problems with violent factions, coups or anything, a nice solid stable society and a solid stable government...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That's so true, especially since all of those countries are 1st world countries that have no problems with violent factions, coups or anything, a nice solid stable society and a solid stable government...

I agree with you, that is what would make the experiment even better. To see what would happen to the US if John Rich was making the laws.

I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understand this fixation with guns.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

. To see what would happen to the US if John Rich was making the laws.

With people like you, truthful arguements run in circles...

Ok, seriously though, I tend to agree with John's gun rights stance. I don't want to go into it again, since I've done it quite a few times in the past, but CCW and such has been proven to reduce violent crime drastically, basically with no ill effects.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

That's so true, especially since all of those countries are 1st world countries that have no problems with violent factions, coups or anything, a nice solid stable society and a solid stable government...

I agree with you, that is what would make the experiment even better. To see what would happen to the US if John Rich was making the laws.

I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understand this fixation with guns.

See this is so clearly an admission of what you are truly not understanding.

It is not JUST a passion for firearms, it is a RIGHT! It is a stand against the ursurption of a RIGHT.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It is not JUST a passion for firearms, it is a RIGHT! It is a stand against the ursurption of a RIGHT

Then how come there is not a big national organization lobying to allow people to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. Is freedom of speech not also one of the basic rights?

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

It is not JUST a passion for firearms, it is a RIGHT! It is a stand against the ursurption of a RIGHT

Then how come there is not a big national organization lobying to allow people to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. Is freedom of speech not also one of the basic rights?

The last time I checked - owning a gun was not the same as insighting a riot.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Quote

It is not JUST a passion for firearms, it is a RIGHT! It is a stand against the ursurption of a RIGHT

Then how come there is not a big national organization lobying to allow people to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. Is freedom of speech not also one of the basic rights?

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre infringes on the expectations of those in the theatre to be safe, it creates a dangerous environment. Allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in public does not infringe on my right safety, or yours. It wouldn't be difficult to make the case that it actually makes us both safer.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre infringes on the expectations of those in the theatre to be safe, it creates a dangerous environment. Allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in public does not infringe on my right safety, or yours. It wouldn't be difficult to make the case that it actually makes us both safer.

Could you honestly explain that to the parents of that 16 year old boy. I think an argument can be made that guns can create a dangerous environment.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre infringes on the expectations of those in the theatre to be safe, it creates a dangerous environment. Allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in public does not infringe on my right safety, or yours. It wouldn't be difficult to make the case that it actually makes us both safer.

Could you honestly explain that to the parents of that 16 year old boy. I think an argument can be made that guns can create a dangerous environment.

Explain that to parents of the newly weds that were gunned down in a home invasion. (No I don't have a link to it)
What would have happened if there was a gun there?

You are AGAIN - stating the exception to the rule.
Give us LONG TERM facts and statistics to support your argument.

Show us where, as a whole, Long term, crime has gone down in places that have anti gun laws and show us statistics.

Show us the same long term statistics where crime has NOT gone down.

You just can't.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Could you honestly explain that to the parents of that 16 year old boy. I think an argument can be made that guns can create a dangerous environment.

There are a lot of things that could be restricted to make people safer. We could get rid of cars, or at least have a max speed limit of 30mph. That would save a lot more people than banning guns would.

Cars are generally useful and not an inherent danger to the public. They can be used in a criminal manner to hurt or kill others. Then can also be used recklessly resulting in others being hurt or killed. The same can be said of a gun. Answer me this, then maybe you'll start to understand. Why don't we ban cars to save people?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Cars are generally useful and not an inherent danger to the public. They can be used in a criminal manner to hurt or kill others. Then can also be used recklessly resulting in others being hurt or killed. The same can be said of a gun. Answer me this, then maybe you'll start to understand. Why don't we ban cars to save people?

I think we have been down this road a couple of times. We do restrict cars, you have to be licensed, have to carry insurance etc etc. Would you be in favour of treating guns the same way?

[PhillyKev 0]

For concealed carry? Yes, I would. I've stated as such that I don't think a test for concealed carry is unreasonable.

I've answered your question, now please answer mine. Why don't we ban cars to save people?