Yep, here it comes - gun control lies front and center

[RobinTKD]

Understand, I'm not advocating that the UK arm everyone, or allow everyone to be armed, or have guns at all-how you conduct yourselves in your country is your business,just as how we do things here in our country is our business.

However



Experience here demonstrates otherwise:



The NRA collects and publishes stories like these in its magazines, "American Rifleman," and "American Hunter" every month

Well I'm glad you presented us with such unbiased journalistic information. I'm pretty sure for every story the NRA print about people effectively defending themselves with firearms, there's another 15 stories about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm, or a story about someone shooting the wrong person, maybe even a friend or family member, when trying to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm.

 

[Wo Fat]

Bank of America is making a political statement by dropping a firearms company...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/

{chuckle}. One socially irresponsible institution being critical of another.

 

[Dirty Dog]

It was written into our constitution that our country is based on and it was the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT thing they wrote.

The Bill of Rights is not actually part of the constitution.
I also question how it can be established that the order in which the amendments were adopted had anything to do with the relative importance of each.
I don't disagree with your position. I am a CCW and routinely carry.
I do question the factual basis of what you've stated above.



Sent from my iPhone using TapaTalk.

 

[elder999]

Well I'm glad you presented us with such unbiased journalistic information. I'm pretty sure for every story the NRA print about people effectively defending themselves with firearms, there's another 15 stories about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm, or a story about someone shooting the wrong person, maybe even a friend or family member, when trying to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm.

It is unbiased. The NRA collects those stories from newspaper accounts around the country. I'm also pretty sure that the number of stories "about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm," or shooting the wrong person, is nowhere near the amount you surmise, but even if it were, that would be no reson to prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms in the U.S.

 

[RobinTKD]

It is unbiased. The NRA collects those stories from newspaper accounts around the country. I'm also pretty sure that the number of stories "about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm," or shooting the wrong person, is nowhere near the amount you surmise, but even if it were, that would be no reson to prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms in the U.S.

I'd say it's the best reason to, people obviously cant be trusted with them over there. Look at Canada, more guns per head yet only a tiny fraction of the gun crime.

To be honest, it didn't bother me until 2 British lads got shot killed in Florida for wandering into 'the wrong neighbourhood'. Is this the dark ages? Should we start attacking people with pitchforks and axes for wandering onto our land?

 

[Sukerkin]

If it's not a question you'd prefer not to answer, Robin, how old are you? Also, did you grow up in the town or in the country?

Both of those factors will have coloured your views quite considerably on this issue.

I'm nearly fifty and was born in a small market town out in the green bits . For me, learning to shoot was as natural a part of my life as learning to ride a bicycle or building a go-kart and, as a result, I have a lot of sympathy for our American cousins here who are passionate about retaining their right to bear arms for whatever lawful pursuit they wish. I grew up before guns became irrationally demonised and before they became some substitute for manhood amongst the gangs that are fed by the drugs trade, so I don't reflexively see them as being evil.

That same feeling goes for my katana - how long I'll have before the Nanny state decides they're too dangerous for me to own and train with I have no idea.

Oh ... and Elder ... I'll spell my native language in the native way thanks all the same .

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What are the numbers where a gun has actually helped?

Compare and contrast the number of legally-armed citizens on any given day in the US (the estimate was 10 million, I believe?) to the number of people those legally-armed citizens have hurt on any given day.

The question "what good have they done" is the wrong question. The real question should be "why would we restrict a legal activity that is not causing major problems?"

I routinely carry a small pocketknife in my pocket. I seldom need it, but it's a personal choice and it is there if I do have call for it. Why would any logical person want to restrict my right to carry it, even though it normally does me no good at all?

It's the same with a legally concealed weapon. One might note that you can't shoot up a parking garage or a barroom with a pocketknife but you can with a gun. Quite true. But from the 10 million legal weapon carriers in the USA, and the relative dearth of shootings by legally-registered concealed carry owners, I can state with some degree of confidence that the pocket knife and the legally-concealed handgun have about the same degree of risk to the general public.

It's the same argument I have with those in favor of photo ID for voting. They tout the potential risk of abuse. But there is no actual abuse, so there is no need to enact stricter laws. Potential means nothing if not actualized. The same is true of legal carry in the US. There is no problem; no one can point to a systemic problem or an epidemic of violence by legal concealed carry owners. Therefore there is no need of a cure for a problem that does not exist.

 

[jks9199]

The Bill of Rights is not actually part of the constitution.
I also question how it can be established that the order in which the amendments were adopted had anything to do with the relative importance of each.
I don't disagree with your position. I am a CCW and routinely carry.
I do question the factual basis of what you've stated above.



Sent from my iPhone using TapaTalk.

Minor correction: The Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution. It's the first 10 Amendments -- or additions -- to the Constitution. That's why other amendments can alter what the main body says (see the 12th and 22nd Amendments, for example.)

I do agree that the order doesn't really have anything to do with the relative importance of each amendment. The Bill of Rights, as a whole, was demanded as part of the ratification process of the Constitution; all 10 were added at the same time, and all 10 were things that the Founding Fathers felt necessary to spell out.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, we also have "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure", we also have the freedom to walk our streets without the fear of being shot, which I would say is a much nicer freedom to have. And yes some of our criminals have guns, but mostly they carry knives, knives that are easier to conceal, that don't make a loud bang when used against someone, and are easier for people to obtain. Isn't this why we train in self defence?

But we have quite a few criminals with guns here. Why should they be armed and we not? As most are aware, legal bans on things don't seem to stop the criminals getting them.

Culture isn't an argument for guns, Christ it shouldn't be used as an argument for anything. Ever.

Yes I'm from the UK as some of you already guessed, even our police don't carry firearms, and *gasp* many of them do their job without being attacked with weapons!

But put them in downtown Detroit and they'd be dead in a day. So perhaps culture does matter.

 

[RobinTKD]

If it's not a question you'd prefer not to answer, Robin, how old are you? Also, did you grow up in the town or in the country?

Both of those factors will have coloured your views quite considerably on this issue.

I'm nearly fifty and was born in a small market town out in the green bits . For me, learning to shoot was as natural a part of my life as learning to ride a bicycle or building a go-kart and, as a result, I have a lot of sympathy for our American cousins here who are passionate about retaining their right to bear arms for whatever lawful pursuit they wish. I grew up before guns became irrationally demonised and before they became some substitute for manhood amongst the gangs that are fed by the drugs trade, so I don't reflexively see them as being evil.

That same feeling goes for my katana - how long I'll have before the Nanny state decides they're too dangerous for me to own and train with I have no idea.

Oh ... and Elder ... I'll spell my native language in the native way thanks all the same .

I'm 25 which is young I know, and I grew up in, and live in the country. I've fired at a fair few clays myself, and gone hunting with a couple of party's before.

The difference is, we hunt with rifles and shoot clays with shotguns, neither are going to be easily concealed, and we don't have this nonsense of carrying them for 'self defence'. The same should be said of your (and mine as I currently have 3 antiques on the wall) Katana. I don't carry them for self defence, I have no pretensions that they can or should be used for self defence, and even if i did, how would you get away with carrying a long blade like that?

 

[RobinTKD]

But we have quite a few criminals with guns here. Why should they be armed and we not? As most are aware, legal bans on things don't seem to stop the criminals getting them.



But put them in downtown Detroit and they'd be dead in a day. So perhaps culture does matter.

My answer to both your points is that your country is too far gone, firearms are way too ingrained into your culture for it to ever find a serious solution. That's why hundreds of people will wrongly lose there lives every year, because whether legally or illegally, there are too many guns too easily attainable in the US.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well I'm glad you presented us with such unbiased journalistic information. I'm pretty sure for every story the NRA print about people effectively defending themselves with firearms, there's another 15 stories about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm, or a story about someone shooting the wrong person, maybe even a friend or family member, when trying to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm.

You can assume that if you like; FBI statistics say it isn't so. In fact, Google News provides the information on a daily basis for those interested enough to look for themselves.

http://www.ksat.com/news/2-elderly-people-targeted-for-home-invasions/-/478452/11182248/-/d81gne/-/

Let's take this one from one day ago. Two elderly people, who live around the corner from each other and even go to church together, both had their front doors kicked in on the same night (might it have been the same person?). In the first home invasion, the homeowner was shot three times by the burglar as he menacingly laid in bed, posing a huge threat to the burglar by being in his own home angrily sleeping in a very threatening way. Poor burglar, of course he shot the man several time, who wouldn't?

In the neighbor's house, she got up and took a shot at the burglar, who fled.

Hmmm.

I really don't think this sort of thing needs lots of discussion. It speaks for itself.

Hmmm. Lay in bed and let the bad guy shoot you. Or, take action and try to stop them, by firing your weapon at them, and they run away. Hmmm. Gee, this is a tough one. Let me think...

“He said he thought he surprised the suspects,” said Capt. Cris Andersen, SAPD’s Night Watch commander. “One of the suspects fired at least three shots at the man as he was lying in bed.”

Fannie Mae Brown, 89, said she woke up around 1 a.m. to find a man in her home in the 400 block of Como Street.

"I decided, 'I got to shoot. I have no alternative because they're not in here for (anything other than to do her harm),'" Brown said.

The gunshot missed the burglar, but did scare him off.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My answer to both your points is that your country is too far gone, firearms are way too ingrained into your culture for it to ever find a serious solution. That's why hundreds of people will wrongly lose there lives every year, because whether legally or illegally, there are too many guns too easily attainable in the US.

In that case, it hardly matters whether or not the country restricts legal ownership of guns by citizens. So we'll just carry on then, if it's OK with you, that is.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah I see, Robin. I hadn't realised that you were focussed particularly on concealed handguns rather than firearms in general - my bad for not reading the whole thread through again .

I understand your position on the notion of carrying a pistol for self-defence here in Britain and feel much the same way in the context of our culture - but American's have a rather different culture and perspective on this. In their own context, I think that they have a pretty good point (tho I do agree about the seemingly out of kilter figures for violence involving firearms there).

 

[RobinTKD]

You can assume that if you like; FBI statistics say it isn't so. In fact, Google News provides the information on a daily basis for those interested enough to look for themselves.

http://www.ksat.com/news/2-elderly-people-targeted-for-home-invasions/-/478452/11182248/-/d81gne/-/

Let's take this one from one day ago. Two elderly people, who live around the corner from each other and even go to church together, both had their front doors kicked in on the same night (might it have been the same person?). In the first home invasion, the homeowner was shot three times by the burglar as he menacingly laid in bed, posing a huge threat to the burglar by being in his own home angrily sleeping in a very threatening way. Poor burglar, of course he shot the man several time, who wouldn't?

In the neighbor's house, she got up and took a shot at the burglar, who fled.

Hmmm.

I really don't think this sort of thing needs lots of discussion. It speaks for itself.

Hmmm. Lay in bed and let the bad guy shoot you. Or, take action and try to stop them, by firing your weapon at them, and they run away. Hmmm. Gee, this is a tough one. Let me think...

Refer to my post above. And not once did I try and sympathise with criminals.

 

[RobinTKD]

In that case, it hardly matters whether or not the country restricts legal ownership of guns by citizens. So we'll just carry on then, if it's OK with you, that is.

No it's not, and it shouldn't be with anyone who can rub two braincells together and form the slightest bit of common sense.

 

[RobinTKD]

Ah I see, Robin. I hadn't realised that you were focussed particularly on concealed handguns rather than firearms in general - my bad for not reading the whole thread through again .

I understand your position on the notion of carrying a pistol for self-defence here in Britain and feel much the same way in the context of our culture - but American's have a rather different culture and perspective on this. In their own context, I think that they have a pretty good point (tho I do agree about the seemingly out of kilter figures for violence involving firearms there).

That's my fault, I'm not sure i did specify against handguns or concealed weapons.

The figures aren't just out of kilter, if you look at the numbers alone, you'd think that the whole of the US was a Favella straight out of Rio de Janeiro

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The Bill of Rights is not actually part of the constitution.
I also question how it can be established that the order in which the amendments were adopted had anything to do with the relative importance of each.
I don't disagree with your position. I am a CCW and routinely carry.
I do question the factual basis of what you've stated above.



Sent from my iPhone using TapaTalk.

As noted, the Bill of Rights are the first ten of the current larger number of Amendments to the Constitution, and are therefore part of it. Just not part of the original document.

As to the precedence of the numbering system, I agree that the 2nd Amendment is not therefore the 2nd in importance. However, in the 'dark years' of heavy gun restrictions, when many citizens argued that gun ownership wasn't even an individual right of citizens, much research was done; even anti-gun historians finally gave it up as a bad job; the historical record simply abounds with direct statements made in newspapers, private letters, and written speeches of the day by various original founding members of our nation; they spoke with more or less one voice and said clearly that it was their intent that every man of good character be armed. That's what they meant, that's what they said, and the SCOTUS has finally ruled that indeed, it is an individual right and not a 'militia' right. That whole line of argument is done; even the gun-grabbers don't use it now. It's like scorched earth for them.

 

[Steve]

It is unbiased. The NRA collects those stories from newspaper accounts around the country. I'm also pretty sure that the number of stories "about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm," or shooting the wrong person, is nowhere near the amount you surmise, but even if it were, that would be no reson to prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms in the U.S.

It's biased in that it creates an impression that is misleading. Were a site to collect any news clippings to the contrary it would give the same impression. It certainly happens enough.

I've actually posted the CDC figures on accidental gun shot wounds and deaths. 2010 figures were over 14,000 unintentional firearms related injuries and something like 550 deaths. While I guess it's possible that some of these were accidents with illegally owned guns, I'd bet most (if not all) of these incidents occurred with legally purchased firearms.

In 2009, there were over 30,000 firearm deaths, all reasons included, but almost 20,000 of those were suicides.

I don't know how many crimes are committed with legally owned weapons, but I'd guess quite a few. The AZ shooting of Congresswoman Giffords was with a legally purchased firearm, for example. And there are an alarming number of criminal negligence/manslaughter/murder charges in the State of Washington where a legal gun owner fails to secure his weapon and a child ends up shooting himself or someone else with it. We've had three just in the last few months.

Ultimately, I think that there's an interest on both sides to make the case as severe as possible. On the part of the NRA and gun lobby, there is an interest in implying that all crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. This isn't the case. Neither, however, is it the case that they are all legally owned. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and statistics are hard to find, and I believe that this is intentional, as the truth doesn't serve either position.

Banning guns isn't the answer, IMO, but jesus can't we get a better handle on regulating these things?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No it's not, and it shouldn't be with anyone who can rub two braincells together and form the slightest bit of common sense.

I'll keep your objection in mind, then.