ON guns. Intresting link/survey included

[ris]

more proof that those damnedable weapons need to be outlawed



oh wait, that was a knife in a gunless society, sorry

independent

ownership of a firearm or change of firearms law is unlikely to have made that situation any better. as a 16yo the victim would have been unable to purchase a gun for self protection and if the father had owned one then the only change in the result would have been his own death and subsequent escape from justice.

the victim could have taken a knife as they are not illegal, but did not.

i fail to see how this supports a change in gun control in the united kingdom.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

And as Bish eluded to, a gun does not help a quarrel amongst family members because someone still gets killed. I dont think a gun is really a solution (or the problem) in domestic cases.

As this reveals...the muder gets committed anyway (having a gun wouldnt have helped but then...NOT HAVING ONE didnt help either).

The one exception to this would be that if a Husband or otherwise attacker (and this applys to any situation not just a domestic one)

Its true that a gun just transfers the death of one for another...but Bish is COMPLETELY WRONG in his assumption that this is a BAD THING.

The attacker or person who is committing the murder/attack, has already waived his rights to continue living by commiting the attack..his death is no loss or loss to society and is the PREFERRED death rather than the INNOCENT VICTIM having to accept death because the law prevented his self defense.....

Again...it IS BETTER FOR THE INNOCENT TO BE DEFENDED and its not rocket science to understand that.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Yes...my God, I think he's got it!!! YES>>>Take all guns away from people...erase the f@#ing second stupic amendment and take the fuckin' guns away...then anyone with a gun (other than the army or the police) arrest them, take their guns and melt them into a giant penis for all I care...if someone is seem with a gun, arrest them, get a warrant, remove their guns, search their homes and remove any guns found...destroy those too! You know what you'll have then? Peace!

Really so all of the pre-gun error wars where millions upon millions viciously slaughtered were what....a figment of historical imagination. *cough* There you go not thinking again.

What is so hard for you to understand is that you think...however illogical that it might be, that guns actually save lives. Guns don't save lives...they exchange them for somebody else's life. That's NOT a solution! It's THE problem!

Wrong, you would have innocent victims being killed rather than brutal murders and attackers.

You would sacrifice the lives of the innocent for the guilty? Forgive me if I think your *cough* crazy as hell.

Those aren't weapons! Guns are weapons...their sole use is to kill,maim, injure harm.

Once again I think you need a dictionary. Look up the definition of the word Weapon...Im not going to waste my time educating you.

If it saves the life of one child. One kid who's accidentaly shot by a sibling, friend, family, or themselves. Yes! Yes! A Million times YES!

If it saves the lives of 1,000 childs lives...but 10 loose them in accidents (which by the way the parents do deserve swift and severe punishment for this) then what you are proposing is:

Let 1,000 children die to save 10.

Back to *cough* crazy as hell again.

Nope...another opportunity for the death of a human being.

Yes, but the death of a malicious murdering human being....

Im sure you would rather save the killer and sacrifice the innocent but face it, YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO GET ME TO GO ALONG WITH THAT CRAZY RATIONALE.

 

[ris]

i would agree that the innocent should be protected, the number of children or minors killed in accidental firearms discharges or by being involved [deiberately or accidentally, the both of which we have seen recently] in adult incidents could be considered a reason for making firearms harder to acquire.

as i said before i think it depends on where you live, in the uk the number of firearms incidents is so low that each one can almost be analysed individually. the main ones that reach the press seem to indicate a culture that does not wish to entertain relaxing gun control.

 

[Gonz]

ownership of a firearm or change of firearms law is unlikely to have made that situation any better. as a 16yo the victim would have been unable to purchase a gun for self protection and if the father had owned one then the only change in the result would have been his own death and subsequent escape from justice.

the victim could have taken a knife as they are not illegal, but did not.

i fail to see how this supports a change in gun control in the united kingdom.

My point being, it doesn't take a gun to commit a heinous act. In fact, look at some of the techniques used by the more barbarous countries without an armed populace. It gets ugly.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

i would agree that the innocent should be protected, the number of children or minors killed in accidental firearms discharges or by being involved [deiberately or accidentally, the both of which we have seen recently] in adult incidents could be considered a reason for making firearms harder to acquire.

as i said before i think it depends on where you live, in the uk the number of firearms incidents is so low that each one can almost be analysed individually. the main ones that reach the press seem to indicate a culture that does not wish to entertain relaxing gun control.

Exactly these incidents are very very very rare.

However we have supporting stastics in the US of guns saving many many many more lives on a near daily basis.

 

[ris]

those supporting statistics must only be considered relevant within the us culture, and as was pointed out earlier in this thread, assuming that police statistics or guns used in crime are not included to be a true representation of citizen protection/defense.

the original site link is a genuine polemic which has little supporting statistics [if any that i could find]. it states that the strenghtening of gun control came along with other removals of civil liberties in the uk, and then effectively compared it to a military junta. no links to supportive evidence, only statements prescribed as fact.
it does not see fit to add any further evidence of statistical gathering to support statements like 'armed americans save over 2,000,000 lives from criminal attacks each year'.

in reality nothing more than polemic on firearms that should be taken as just that.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

those supporting statistics must only be considered relevant within the us culture, and as was pointed out earlier in this thread, assuming that police statistics or guns used in crime are not included to be a true representation of citizen protection/defense.

the original site link is a genuine polemic which has little supporting statistics [if any that i could find]. it states that the strenghtening of gun control came along with other removals of civil liberties in the uk, and then effectively compared it to a military junta. no links to supportive evidence, only statements prescribed as fact.
it does not see fit to add any further evidence of statistical gathering to support statements like 'armed americans save over 2,000,000 lives from criminal attacks each year'.

in reality nothing more than polemic on firearms that should be taken as just that.

That one site is about one of 1,000 that I could link to.

Criticize a single web site all day if you want...that doesnt change the facts.

I read headlines (and these are just a very very small sampling) of about 5-10 cases of civilian use in self defense DAILY.

And what you are proposing is that the Police have a right to self defense...but no one else....?

The average citizen doesnt have the same right?

So what regular citizens are expendable but the police are soo wonderful that they are exempt? Not!

And that the police are more in danger? Youd be wrong.

Check the stats yourself and compare the number of police killed by guns versus homicide in the general population. Most murderers would never attack a police officer (they are cowards and dont want to be caught) but they would kill a private citizen in a heartbeat.

Its waaayy more dangerous to be a civilian.

 

[MrBishop]

Really so all of the pre-gun error wars where millions upon millions viciously slaughtered were what....a figment of historical imagination. *cough* There you go not thinking again.

Victims of war...not of the heinous crime of walking on the street.

Wrong, you would have innocent victims being killed rather than brutal murders and attackers.

I'd rather have no one killed, thank you very much. Neither the innocent, nor the guilty.

You would sacrifice the lives of the innocent for the guilty? Forgive me if I think your *cough* crazy as hell.

I restate again...no one dies.

Once again I think you need a dictionary. Look up the definition of the word Weapon...Im not going to waste my time educating you.

Weapon \Weap"on\ (?; 277), n. [OE. wepen, AS. w?pen; akin to OS.
w?pan, OFries. w?pin, w?pen, D. wapen, G. waffe, OHG. waffan,
w[=a]fan, Icel. v[=a]pn, Dan. vaaben, Sw. vapen, Goth. w?pna,
pl.; of uncertain origin. Cf. Wapentake.]
1. An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something
to fight with; designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a
sword, etc.


Seems clear enough.

If it saves the lives of 1,000 childs lives...but 10 loose them in accidents (which by the way the parents do deserve swift and severe punishment for this) then what you are proposing is:

Let 1,000 children die to save 10.

Back to *cough* crazy as hell again.

Actually...what I was saying is inconvenience a million people by removing their guns and save one life. A fair trade!

Yes, but the death of a malicious murdering human being....

Im sure you would rather save the killer and sacrifice the innocent but face it, YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO GET ME TO GO ALONG WITH THAT CRAZY RATIONALE.

If you kill someone in order to save someone, you are no better than the killer. You are no longer innocent. Anyone seeing you pulling out that gun has every right to shoot and kill you too...especially if they're protecting the life of their father/brother/cousin/good buddy (even if their friend just happens to be raping your daughter)...they can claim self-defence.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Victims of war...not of the heinous crime of walking on the street.

Wrong again. Many of those victims were not even walking the street but were murdered where they slept.

I'd rather have no one killed, thank you very much. Neither the innocent, nor the guilty.

Me neither, but if I have to choose...I choose the guilty (common sense)

Weapon \Weap"on\ (?; 277), n. [OE. wepen, AS. w?pen; akin to OS.
w?pan, OFries. w?pin, w?pen, D. wapen, G. waffe, OHG. waffan,
w[=a]fan, Icel. v[=a]pn, Dan. vaaben, Sw. vapen, Goth. w?pna,
pl.; of uncertain origin. Cf. Wapentake.]
1. An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something
to fight with; designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a
sword, etc.


Seems clear enough.

Do you actually read your own posts....Its clear that a WEAPON DOESNT HAVE TO BE A GUN.

Please re-read.

Actually...what I was saying is inconvenience a million people by removing their guns and save one life. A fair trade!

Not fair when it results in the deaths of more innocents than it saves..

If you kill someone in order to save someone, you are no better than the killer. You are no longer innocent. Anyone seeing you pulling out that gun has every right to shoot and kill you too...especially if they're protecting the life of their father/brother/cousin/good buddy (even if their friend just happens to be raping your daughter)...they can claim self-defence.

No they cant. The laws on this are very clear..dont argue with me, just read them yourself. Your just plain wrong.

Not only can you then shoot them to. But regardless of the outcome they are going to be charged with 1) consipracy to committe rape 2)Assault with a deadly weapon (for pulliing out their gun in aid of the rapist) 3) Accessory to rape. 4) Possibly battery.

Are you really so dense that you fail to see that BOTH PARTIES are involved in the rape...and both can have deadly force used upon them legally and ethically in your scenario?

By the way, saving a life does not make you a killer. If it is...all police officers, federal agents, soldiers etc etc. who have used force for the better good deserve to go to prision immediately.

Is that your rationale? (give me a break).

 

[Gato_Solo]

Once again, this has reduced itself to pointlessness. My earlier statement still remains. You don't like guns? Don't buy one. Simple as that. Your neighbor has a gun? Too bad. He has a right to do so as long as he's not a convicted felon. If your neighbor shows irresponsibility with his gun, you can always call the police and file a complaint. Believe it or not, you can do that, and it's totally legal. As for the historical ramifications, I'll say this again. More people die each year from knife wounds than being shot. Check it out for yourself. No links are posted because you could just claim my source is biased, so I'll leave it to you to find your own sources.
What most of you have forgotten is that there's no such thing as a perfectly safe society, and as long as people are involved, there never will be a perfectly safe society. Deal with that fact, and move on. All your posturing on either side of the issue will do absolutely nothing.

One more thing. If you start dismantling the bill of rights because you disagree with one, you'll end up with no rights at all.

 

[ris]

That one site is about one of 1,000 that I could link to.

Criticize a single web site all day if you want...that doesnt change the facts.

I read headlines (and these are just a very very small sampling) of about 5-10 cases of civilian use in self defense DAILY.

And what you are proposing is that the Police have a right to self defense...but no one else....?

The average citizen doesnt have the same right?

So what regular citizens are expendable but the police are soo wonderful that they are exempt? Not!

And that the police are more in danger? Youd be wrong.

Check the stats yourself and compare the number of police killed by guns versus homicide in the general population. Most murderers would never attack a police officer (they are cowards and dont want to be caught) but they would kill a private citizen in a heartbeat.

Its waaayy more dangerous to be a civilian.

i can criticise the site to my hearts content - you posted it to begin this thread. at present the facts presented are not facts but unsupported polemic.
if you have these statistics then i recommend posting them, then i can check them myself.

i have made no statements on the police force save to point out that the statistics quoted are unsubstantiated and that perhaps police forces need better recruitment of those with relevant skills. i proposed nothing, i suggested nothing on the value of police over citizens or who should or should not carry firearms.

 

[ris]

My point being, it doesn't take a gun to commit a heinous act. In fact, look at some of the techniques used by the more barbarous countries without an armed populace. It gets ugly.

indeed, it does not take a gun to commit a heinous act, it would be debateable that shooting someone repeatedly to kill them is any less barbarous than slitting the throat.

 

[MrBishop]

Do you actually read your own posts....Its clear that a WEAPON DOESNT HAVE TO BE A GUN.

Please re-read.).

Yup...read them. A gun HAS to be a weapon by definition. A knife does not because it's not built specifically to injure. That was the point. You were going on about removing knives from people, and cars etc... I said that those were not weapons (not designed specifically to kill or injure) and should be excluded from the 'banned' list.

AnomalousEntity: Are you going to outlaw knives, house holders, steps, cars industrial chemicals, etc etc also?.​

Those aren't weapons! Guns are weapons...their sole use is to kill,maim, injure harm.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yup...read them. A gun HAS to be a weapon by definition. A knife does not because it's not built specifically to injure. That was the point. You were going on about removing knives from people, and cars etc... I said that those were not weapons (not designed specifically to kill or injure) and should be excluded from the 'banned' list.

AnomalousEntity: Are you going to outlaw knives, house holders, steps, cars industrial chemicals, etc etc also?.​

Those aren't weapons! Guns are weapons...their sole use is to kill,maim, injure harm.

A knife most certainly is a weapon. It has only one use...to cut.

 

[chcr]

A knife most certainly is a weapon. It has only one use...to cut.

Definitely. More useful than a gun in many circumstances. Two uses, though. The point is as useful as the edge.

 

[ris]

i tried shooting some vegetables for a stew, now i need a new chopping board.

and a new worktop

and a new set of kitchen units.

damn 12 guage ruined my floor too.

and my wall

 

[chcr]

 

[freako104]

Yes...my God, I think he's got it!!! YES>>>Take all guns away from people...erase the f@#ing second stupic amendment and take the fuckin' guns away...then anyone with a gun (other than the army or the police) arrest them, take their guns and melt them into a giant penis for all I care...if someone is seem with a gun, arrest them, get a warrant, remove their guns, search their homes and remove any guns found...destroy those too! You know what you'll have then? Peace!

i hate to say it this way Bish, but i dont knwo that youll have peace. youll have less shootings granted but you can still have knives,cars,and hands too can be used to kill someone(points on the body if utilised correctly can kill someone). poeple will find ways if they feel they need to. but otherwise i somewhat agree. but i still defend the second amendment since its a right

 

[Mirlyn]

Once again, this has reduced itself to pointlessness. My earlier statement still remains. You don't like guns? Don't buy one. Simple as that. Your neighbor has a gun? Too bad. He has a right to do so as long as he's not a convicted felon. If your neighbor shows irresponsibility with his gun, you can always call the police and file a complaint. Believe it or not, you can do that, and it's totally legal. As for the historical ramifications, I'll say this again. More people die each year from knife wounds than being shot. Check it out for yourself. No links are posted because you could just claim my source is biased, so I'll leave it to you to find your own sources.
What most of you have forgotten is that there's no such thing as a perfectly safe society, and as long as people are involved, there never will be a perfectly safe society. Deal with that fact, and move on. All your posturing on either side of the issue will do absolutely nothing.

One more thing. If you start dismantling the bill of rights because you disagree with one, you'll end up with no rights at all.

Can I get an amen? Couldn't have said it better myself--any and all of it.