rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,105
QuoteHere is an Op/Ed that talks to the sources of guns used in crimes. I am not trying to make any point I just found it interesting for the data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070127-092608-3686r.htm
Poor Lott, can't get a permanent post anywhere - always "visiting".
He doesn't address how these "illegal" guns "on the street" came to be illegal in the first place. They weren't illegal when they were manufactured.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
So behind every gang banger's gun obtained this way there is a "law abiding citizen".
False by definition.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, we know that muggings, burglaries, rapes etc. occur with about the same frequency in UK, Australia and Canada as in US, but homicides are far higher in the US. A very simple FACT that you guys try to brush under the carpet.
Where have I brushed it under the carpet - every time you haul out that argument, I counter with the fact that cultural differences between cultures help drive that, not just the availability (or not) of guns.
Why would the culture not have the same effect on other violent crimes? Is it possible that it's the GUN culture that's to blame?
Show me the stats where those crimes are being committed by otherwise law-abiding persons and you might sway me.
Every murderer was once a law abiding individual. Every one. 100%
Smoke and mirrors, John...just answer the question.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteYeap O.K I I I give up.
Lets go and campaign to make Cocaine and other class A drugs legal.. We should after all think of others before our selves.
Bye,
I feel like you missed his point.
In the US for example. Smoking is legal. Cigaretts are legal. I hate being around smoke but, even with that said, I feel the only place the gov should be about to do anything about it is in gov owned public places. I do not feel they should be able to tell a bar owner they can not allow smoking because it is property the owner allows the public in to eat or drink. In essance, I feel it is wrong to regulate privatly owned businesses because some busybody wants to go in to this place but doesn't like being around smoke. I aplaud my states Supreme court for saying as much.
Now apply this to gun ownership. In the US it is a right spelled out by the constitution. Anybody making the claim that a militia is what is being talkied about better had better to be ready to give up all the other rights as well because individal right has to be interpeted differerntly for someone to support that claim. The major law schools (for the most part) have stated this and is where I learned that fact.
To continue, regarless if you want to own a gun, everyone needs to fight for all the rights lest they loose the rest of them too.
I do not know what the UK laws state about gun ownership but I do feel it necessary to debate the stats as to what has happened there (since some guns were banned) because the anti gunners (and they did this first) use foreign examples to try and sway people. It only seems right the when facts are wrong or misused, those errors or deceptions (if any) be brought to light.
Firstly you forget this thread is about gun ownership in the UK not the USA. We do not have a constitutional right to own a weapon over here.
Secondly we were never allowed to defend ourselves or our property with the guns that were banned anyway so taking them away hasn't made any difference.
The ban referred to was never meant to reduce gun crime, it was meant to prevent a specific type of gun crime. Gun crime has increased but for other reasons other than the ban.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAs an experiment, and as I have been wanting to anyway for a long time, I made my initial application for a firearms certificate today. Not a shotgun licence but one that would allow use of semi automatic rifle or large caliber single shot rifle for 'target' use
I'll keep you posted! I believe though that I have to be the member of a recognised gun club for at least six months prior to it being entertained
Good luck - careful that rifle doesn't jump up and start shooting people at random, ok?
but once he gets his gun...he could turn psycho and use it ti kill innocent people...if it was impossible for him to obtian a gun in the first place, you've taken that possible scenario out of the equation...and that's what the british government is trying to do. they are trying to put measures in place to stop some guns getting into the wrongs hands.... like i said before, if those measures also stop lawfulgun owners having guns too, then in our governments eyes (and thankfully, many citizens eyes too) thats a price worth paying to take just a few guns off the streets that might get used to kill innocent people
In the US those that have conceal carry permits are shown statistically to be MORE law abiding than the general population. NO police officer has been killed by a person permitted to carry a weapon. On the flip side there are 4 confimed cases where officers lives were saved because a civilan who was permited to carry, had their weapon on them and saved the life of the officer.
Your analogy is flat f*7%ing backwards. You see, people licensed to carry are not criminals. Criminals do not care about the law to begin with.
I ask again, how many inocent people must die because a government removed their right to carry a weapon to protect themselves, before you will change your mind???
Our government didn't remove our right to protect ourselves with guns because we were never allowed to protect ourselves with guns in the first place!!! When will you learn? We never had a right to own a gun for self protection prior to the ban. Taking guns away from us hasn't taken away our right to use them in self defence because we were able to anyway.
QuoteQuote
Most people couldn't kill with their bare hands or stick a knife in someone. Most people are not that way inclined.
Most people aren't inclined to kill a dozen people by any means. Got some science beyond 'i think it would be easier to be a psychotic killer with a gun?'
I don't know much about being a psychotic killer .... I never claimed to.
I don't have scientific quotes for you either..... do you? However from what I've read generally over the years (no quotes I'm afraid) it is relatively easy to squeeze a trigger when some distance from the target compared to the physical exertion and psycological trauma of killing by repeatedly sticking a knife into someones chest/sawing away at their throat/sticking it through their eye to hit the brain. A 10 year old child could kill a grown man with a gun quite easily but they would find it quite difficult (in most cases) of killing him with a knife (no scientific quotes for you there either I'm afraid, just common sense)
rushmc 23
So, if guns are still available for the "other" crimes how do you expect they will not be attained by those wanting to comit a "specific" crime??QuoteQuoteQuoteYeap O.K I I I give up.
Lets go and campaign to make Cocaine and other class A drugs legal.. We should after all think of others before our selves.
Bye,
I feel like you missed his point.
In the US for example. Smoking is legal. Cigaretts are legal. I hate being around smoke but, even with that said, I feel the only place the gov should be about to do anything about it is in gov owned public places. I do not feel they should be able to tell a bar owner they can not allow smoking because it is property the owner allows the public in to eat or drink. In essance, I feel it is wrong to regulate privatly owned businesses because some busybody wants to go in to this place but doesn't like being around smoke. I aplaud my states Supreme court for saying as much.
Now apply this to gun ownership. In the US it is a right spelled out by the constitution. Anybody making the claim that a militia is what is being talkied about better had better to be ready to give up all the other rights as well because individal right has to be interpeted differerntly for someone to support that claim. The major law schools (for the most part) have stated this and is where I learned that fact.
To continue, regarless if you want to own a gun, everyone needs to fight for all the rights lest they loose the rest of them too.
I do not know what the UK laws state about gun ownership but I do feel it necessary to debate the stats as to what has happened there (since some guns were banned) because the anti gunners (and they did this first) use foreign examples to try and sway people. It only seems right the when facts are wrong or misused, those errors or deceptions (if any) be brought to light.
Firstly you forget this thread is about gun ownership in the UK not the USA. We do not have a constitutional right to own a weapon over here.Ok, your lossQuoteNo, I did not. My point was to why John felt the need to bring up other countries stats
Secondly we were never allowed to defend ourselves or our property with the guns that were banned anyway so taking them away hasn't made any difference.
The ban referred to was never meant to reduce gun crime, it was meant to prevent a specific type of gun crime. Gun crime has increased but for other reasons other than the ban.
There was a court case in the US some years back. A family was sueing the govenrment because they had been a victum of a crime and the police did not make it to the site for 20 min. (or some period of time) They claimed that the government had a responsibility to protect them. The judge said (and please lawrocket, corret any major mistakes please if you know them) that the people had to protect themselves and that it was not the governments responsibilty. I know this thread is about the UK but the anti gunners here constantly use over seas (cooked) data to try and make a point for their cause here.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAs an experiment, and as I have been wanting to anyway for a long time, I made my initial application for a firearms certificate today. Not a shotgun licence but one that would allow use of semi automatic rifle or large caliber single shot rifle for 'target' use
I'll keep you posted! I believe though that I have to be the member of a recognised gun club for at least six months prior to it being entertained
Good luck - careful that rifle doesn't jump up and start shooting people at random, ok?
but once he gets his gun...he could turn psycho and use it ti kill innocent people...if it was impossible for him to obtian a gun in the first place, you've taken that possible scenario out of the equation...and that's what the british government is trying to do. they are trying to put measures in place to stop some guns getting into the wrongs hands.... like i said before, if those measures also stop lawful
In the US those that have conceal carry permits are shown statistically to be MORE law abiding than the general population. NO police officer has been killed by a person permitted to carry a weapon. On the flip side there are 4 confimed cases where officers lives were saved because a civilan who was permited to carry, had their weapon on them and saved the life of the officer.
Your analogy is flat f*7%ing backwards. You see, people licensed to carry are not criminals. Criminals do not care about the law to begin with.
I ask again, how many inocent people must die because a government removed their right to carry a weapon to protect themselves, before you will change your mind???
Our government didn't remove our right to protect ourselves with guns because we were never allowed to protect ourselves with guns in the first place!!! When will you learn? We never had a right to own a gun for self protection prior to the ban. Taking guns away from us hasn't taken away our right to use them in self defence because we were able to anyway.
One more time I KNOW. Ok, I get your point. refer to my other post......
I am however not goint to stop responding the the rediculus point the other was trying to make
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteSo, if guns are still available for the "other" crimes how do you expect they will not be attained by those wanting to comit a "specific" crime??
Not saying they cannot get hold of another weapon but it is much harder to get their hands on one now
Quote
There was a court case in the US some years back. A family was sueing the govenrment because they had been a victum of a crime and the police did not make it to the site for 20 min. (or some period of time) They claimed that the government had a responsibility to protect them. The judge said (and please lawrocket, corret any major mistakes please if you know them) that the people had to protect themselves and that it was not the governments responsibilty. I know this thread is about the UK but the anti gunners here constantly use over seas (cooked) data to try and make a point for their cause here.
I agree with the judgement but you seem to be arguing for the sake of an argument rather than actually trying to understand the facts of the ban. Your legal system does not apply over here anyway. For your info we can use self defence in the UK but we cannot keep weapons for that purpose.
mnealtx 0
QuoteThere was a court case in the US some years back. A family was sueing the govenrment because they had been a victum of a crime and the police did not make it to the site for 20 min.
Warren vs. District of Columbia is the case you're thinking of, I believe. It's one of the most well-known, anyway.
From the memorandum opinion in the case (emphasis mine):
"The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."
In other words, the police aren't REQUIRED to save you - only to investigate the crime.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteSo, if guns are still available for the "other" crimes how do you expect they will not be attained by those wanting to comit a "specific" crime??
Not saying they cannot get hold of another weapon but it is much harder to get their hands on one nowQuote
There was a court case in the US some years back. A family was sueing the govenrment because they had been a victum of a crime and the police did not make it to the site for 20 min. (or some period of time) They claimed that the government had a responsibility to protect them. The judge said (and please lawrocket, corret any major mistakes please if you know them) that the people had to protect themselves and that it was not the governments responsibilty. I know this thread is about the UK but the anti gunners here constantly use over seas (cooked) data to try and make a point for their cause here.
I agree with the judgement but you seem to be arguing for the sake of an argument rather than actually trying to understand the facts of the ban. Your legal system does not apply over here anyway. For your info we can use self defence in the UK but we cannot keep weapons for that purpose.
Sorry we are not connecting but I do understant your point
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteThere was a court case in the US some years back. A family was sueing the govenrment because they had been a victum of a crime and the police did not make it to the site for 20 min.
Warren vs. District of Columbia is the case you're thinking of, I believe. It's one of the most well-known, anyway.
From the memorandum opinion in the case (emphasis mine):
"The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."
In other words, the police aren't REQUIRED to save you - only to investigate the crime.
Thanks!! I knew somebody out there would have the details
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,105
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, we know that muggings, burglaries, rapes etc. occur with about the same frequency in UK, Australia and Canada as in US, but homicides are far higher in the US. A very simple FACT that you guys try to brush under the carpet.
Where have I brushed it under the carpet - every time you haul out that argument, I counter with the fact that cultural differences between cultures help drive that, not just the availability (or not) of guns.
Why would the culture not have the same effect on other violent crimes? Is it possible that it's the GUN culture that's to blame?
Show me the stats where those crimes are being committed by otherwise law-abiding persons and you might sway me.
Every murderer was once a law abiding individual. Every one. 100%
Smoke and mirrors, John...just answer the question.
You want to know - you look it up. I'm not here to do your research for you.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Nick 0
***"The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."
In other words, the police aren't REQUIRED to save you - only to investigate the crime.***
Would be interesting to see how this would apply in UK law and what the remit of our police, I'm sure mr2mk1g will have some accurate information on this.
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
In other words, the police aren't REQUIRED to save you - only to investigate the crime.***
Would be interesting to see how this would apply in UK law and what the remit of our police, I'm sure mr2mk1g will have some accurate information on this.
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
rushmc 23
Quote***"The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."
In other words, the police aren't REQUIRED to save you - only to investigate the crime.***
Would be interesting to see how this would apply in UK law and what the remit of our police, I'm sure mr2mk1g will have some accurate information on this.
Yes, it will be
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, we know that muggings, burglaries, rapes etc. occur with about the same frequency in UK, Australia and Canada as in US, but homicides are far higher in the US. A very simple FACT that you guys try to brush under the carpet.
Where have I brushed it under the carpet - every time you haul out that argument, I counter with the fact that cultural differences between cultures help drive that, not just the availability (or not) of guns.
Why would the culture not have the same effect on other violent crimes? Is it possible that it's the GUN culture that's to blame?
Show me the stats where those crimes are being committed by otherwise law-abiding persons and you might sway me.
Every murderer was once a law abiding individual. Every one. 100%
Smoke and mirrors, John...just answer the question.
You want to know - you look it up. I'm not here to do your research for you.
Translation: I can't refute the point, so I'm not going to answer.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,105
QuoteYou want to know - you look it up. I'm not here to do your research for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: I can't refute the point, so I'm not going to answer.
If you are trying to make a point, the burden is on you to provide supporting evidence, not on me.
Want to make a point, then YOU provide the data.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070127-092608-3686r.htm
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites