How do you feel about guns?

Yeah, but in cases like that there will soon be no difference between the three. All of them will be able to take what they want when they want and with no argument, unless you want to die.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But if only outlaws, cops, and troops have guns, who will defend us against them? Cops only get there after the damage is done; the outlaws, well, do the damage; and the military are indoctrinated into being loyal to the regime rather than to the people...so, really, the only way for us to defend ourselves right then and there is if guns are avaliable to the masses. Maybe not assault weapons, but at least shotguns, pistols, and rifles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I take your point but it really depends on the society you happen to be a part of. Here in the UK we have the right to protest peacefully without the fear of being shot by the police or military, and gun crime is not so high that we all live in fear of it. Even if you gave guns to every person in the UK it would not solve any probelms, but create new problems. If a bank robber runs down the street waving a gun then I doubt it would help if members of the public pulled out pistols, shotguns and rifles to tackle the criminal and defend themselves. All you'd have is a lot of dead and injured people, unless of course the civilians were brilliant marksmen. If 'we' are worried about the ills of society then let's try to make some constructive changes with a view to solving these problems (violent crime), and not just asume that handing out guns to everybody is going to help. Would an armed vigilante public be a good thing? Where would we draw the line between self defence and unlawful murder? What age restriction should be in place? Would potential gun owners be tested for suitability, such as violent tempers, people of lower intelligence, short sighted people, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Keep it up. Hopefully it makes you feel better considering you refuse to address the topic. Troll.

 

So much for gun laws, only the criminals have gun>

UK: Gun Crime - Rising Every Year
It would have the exact opposite effect, and the UK's sharply-rising crime stats since strict gun-control measures went into effect in '96 bear that out. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293201/posts


BBC News | UK | Police fears over rising gun crime
Members of the Metropolitan Police's firearms unit tell the BBC they need more resources to tackle London's high rate of gun crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1471716.stm

Rising business crime cost UK plc £8.7bn last year
months. Number of UK businesses affected by types of crime. The number of British businesses affected by crime is rising. Nearly 900000 (858800) businesses ...
http://www.axa4business.co.uk/files/document/BusinessCrimeIndexSep2003.p

UK Fights Rising Gun Crime With More Police -GunControlPolicy.com.
Information on the intent, practicality and success of gun control measures and legislation.
http://guncontrolpolicy.com/commentary/2.html

Texican Tattler: Scotland: Gun Crime - Rising Every Year
That's what the rising rate of gun crime in the UK is since they banned firearms. But they have public confidence. I wonder - exactly in what does the UK ...
http://mysite.verizon.net/jimroth/2004/12/scotland-gun-crime-rising-every-year.htm

 

I fail to see the connection between the gun control laws and the rate of gun related crime (or otherwise). It might be increasing but by simply stating the numbers you are not considering the nature of the crimes themselves. If, which seems likely, most gun crime is gang related then what difference would it make if members of the public were armed, other than even more people able to shoot at each other if provoked. Until the UK police come out and state that the gun control laws are fuelling gun crime then people that want to reverse the gun laws have no argument.

 

Only if you live in a banana republic or a glorified banana republic.

 

That's so...well here's a quote that I think applies to you:
"The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete
accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless
of their lives, undismayed by any danger." -SUN TZU<The Art of War>
Do you live in the U.K.? Regardless, would you rather die defenseless or go down swinging? Less people would be wreckless with guns if they knew it was likely that their victim was also armed. Fear is a great motivator, all forms of bussiness/government/religion are based on it.

 

I do live in the UK, and I've been to the US and various European countries. Here in the UK we do not fear gun crime, since it is still quite rare, therefore we do not want to own guns because we have no use for them. It's all well and good saying that you want a gun just in case a madman breaks into your house with the intention of killing your family, but what are the chances of that? And even if said madman did break in, would you have time to grab your gun, or would you spray bullets around the house at the slightest strange noise? Does that fact that many people in the US are armed have a proven positive effect on the crime rate? Surely a criminal is more likely to shoot you if he suspects you have a weapon too? Like I've said before, the only people qualified to judge whether or not gun ownership can help reduce the crime rate are the police. Until they tell me it's in my interests to own a gun then I'm going to live without one. We don't live in the Wild West. So you're a victim of fear are you? If the government tell you to be afraid, do you shit your pants and grab the shotgun? If a preacher tells you you're going to hell, do you shit your pants and spend your time reading the Bible and praying?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You sir, are a sheep being led down the primrose path. Unfortunately for you that path goes straight to the meat packing plant and your government is enjoying the mutton. Did you not see that great britian went frpm having a much lower Gun Crime rate than ours to one that is higher than ours, per capita that is? Meanwhile for the US, we have learned from Dr. Lott's studiess that in areas with a higher rate of legal gun ownership crime is going down. Conversely in areas where gun ownership is wrongf8ully supressed, violent crime is growing. I'm sorry that is too much a direct correlation for me ignore. If you do nt want a gun in your home that is fine, don't have one. I won't force you to get one and your government won't. they want you firmly dependant on them for your pprotection. That way they can jack you around all they want.

 

no only if you live in a country run by human beings. Oh wait that's all of them.

 

Pretty fuckin' high, actually, especially in large cities.

 

I guess we just disagree on this subject, hey ho!
Last time I checked it was people like me who pay the wages of the law enforcers and military. If I think my goverment are jerks, then I don't vote for them. I actually take comfort in knowing that not every arsehole in town has a gun under their pillow, especially during hot summers (gun fight road rage anyone?). My choice is to stay away from guns, at least nobody can be worried about being shot by me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm glad I live in Hampshire!

 

i would agree with banning guns when they make dull knives and soft hammers.

 

wsionynw, please post your address and the fact that you aren't armed and then expect visitors, and the wait for the police to show up after the crime has been committed, Do you know that there is a Supreme Court Decision that the police do not have a duty to protect you as a individual only the peace of the public at large?

 

Uh, haha, BS. Did you even bother to read my links and studies? Flat out wrong.

Countries/states/cities with stricter gun laws have MORE gun-related crimes per capita, and countries/states/cities with less strict gun laws have LESS gun-related crimes. Not just gun-related, but violent crime, period.

The reason being is that criminals will always have guns, regardless of law, so strict gun laws just make you a bigger target unable to defend yourself. And more crimes are prevented each year, more than double, than are commited by guns as well.

Just look at any of my previous posts for the numerous links. Canada, Australia, and UK's crime rates, and gun-related crime rates have shot up ever since they became more stricter with their gun laws. The only downside with the U.S. and their gun-related crimes is that most crimes occur in the big cities and unfortunately that's where we have liberal mayors that ban guns, yet gun crime increases; doesn't go down. The cities that have lax gun laws, gun crime is low.

An armed society is a polite society. And criminals don't fear the police, they fear citizens with guns above all.

Your strict gun laws happed in the 90's. That's exactly when violent crime and gun-related crimes shot up ungodly. A bunch of charts and graphs are shown below. Take a look at how they skyrocket at the moment your gun laws came into effect:

- N

 

So, anyway ... an example of what confuses me about guns, or, more specifically, their owners:

Not long ago, some folks who live two floors below me threw a party. Yes, there were a few things wrong with the party, but nothing major; just some noise and the fact that when it was shut down, the lessees on the apartment were nowhere to be found. The party didn't bother me at the time; I defer to Friday and Saturday nights as the nights most working folks seem to like to run late. Of course, the guy who lives across the hall from the party felt differently; I can certainly understand why.

But here's the strange thing: when I was talking to the complaining neighbor about it a couple days later, he mentioned that he had "loaded up the Glock". I chose not to be inquisitional; the politics of ethnicity seemed to be at play, but that runs both ways, and includes as well as the white man's paranoia, the Hispanic's machismo. He complained about the party; big deal. He loaded the Glock in case any of the partygoers had anything to say after the festivities were shut down.

To the one, I understand his annoyance at the party; after all, his five month-old grandson was staying overnight. To the other, I was confused. Loading up the Glock with a five month-old present? Yes, I know the odds are exceptionally slim, but in this state it seems you can accidentally discharge a firearm through the wall of the neighbor's apartment, kill a sleeping infant, and walk away without having to answer for your actions. (That the shooter was drunk on that occasion is even more puzzling, but irrelevant; you can also accidentally shoot a schoolteacher attending to a kindergarten student when you're sober and not have to answer for it.)

Is this really how gun owners think, though? Had it been me, or someone not Hispanic, would my neighbor have thought differently? It's not even fair to assign the ethnic tension to him; it didn't come up. But I'm struggling to understand why the Glock was loaded up. It seems an overreaction, and it seems at least fair to qestion the wisdom of toting around a loaded gun while in a state of ire while caring for a five month-old.

At any rate, I find the Glock more problematic than the party. I mean, I like the guy; he doesn't seem so irrational when I'm talking to him. But ... what?

Seriously? There's a party next door and you load up the Glock? When it's the white kids who share a wall with him, he doesn't load up the Glock.

And yet, regardless of the potential racial politics, is a party next door really a reason to load up the Glock?

Gun owners seem to itch for a reason to lock 'n' load. What gives?

 

Guns are good, if they are in the right hands. A person should pass a backround check to get a gun, and the gun should be chipped.