The UK Handgun Ban is so effective...

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: punchkin
The countries that ban guns tend to have lower murder rates. That's one thing. I'd also like to point out that if guns were banned here, we too would no longer have a gun culture.

Actually, you are completely wrong about this. If guns were banned here we would have a Civil War. People don't like getting their rights trampled on or taken away. There are a lot of firm believers in the second amendment. Many are armed. Banning guns won't make them magically go away, it will incite revolt.

EDIT: On second read of your post, I think you were probably being sarcastic or joking. Is my sacrasm meter working? Or were you actually being serious?

They don't? Hmmmm, You have lost a lot of rights in the past 8 years, I don't see civil wars going on... I think we should ban hand guns.... All automatic weapons and the only gun anyone should be able to have is a shot gun... They are all you will ever need for home defense. I just don't believe every gang banger drug user junkie thug robber molester should be able to pack heat... The problem is most people that abide by the laws don't carry a concealed weapon. Gotta go get a license pay for this and that... keep it updated. Etc...etc... Where the average criminal 99% of all of them are packing ... no license no training... It's stupid...

But, your not suppose to look at it that way I guess... Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: punchkin
The countries that ban guns tend to have lower murder rates. That's one thing. I'd also like to point out that if guns were banned here, we too would no longer have a gun culture.

Actually, you are completely wrong about this. If guns were banned here we would have a Civil War. People don't like getting their rights trampled on or taken away. There are a lot of firm believers in the second amendment. Many are armed. Banning guns won't make them magically go away, it will incite revolt.

EDIT: On second read of your post, I think you were probably being sarcastic or joking. Is my sacrasm meter working? Or were you actually being serious?

They don't? Hmmmm, You have lost a lot of rights in the past 8 years, I don't see civil wars going on... I think we should ban hand guns.... All automatic weapons and the only gun anyone should be able to have is a shot gun... They are all you will ever need for home defense. I just don't believe every gang banger drug user junkie thug robber molester should be able to pack heat... The problem is most people that abide by the laws don't carry a concealed weapon. Gotta go get a license pay for this and that... keep it updated. Etc...etc... Where the average criminal 99% of all of them are packing ... no license no training... It's stupid...

But, your not suppose to look at it that way I guess... Ignorance is bliss.

So you just admitted that criminals are carrying in violation of the law. And your solution is to... pass more laws? Damn, why didn't I think of that?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor
So it's anti-American to stand up against the government for your rights? Which cabinet position do you hold in the Bush Administration?

It would be anti-American to attack those upholding the law. If you don't have an individual right of gun ownership, you just don't, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so.

So you're saying the government has never passed an unjust law?

I wasn't aware the government was infallible.

So I guess you agreed that at the time blacks should only have counted 3/5ths of a white, since it was law at the time. Or that it was fine that women weren't allowed to vote, because hey, it was the law. And how dare anyone challenge it.

I think a few people were killed as a result of prohibition if I remember right...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If i felt that i needed a gun to be safe in my own home or on the streets around where i live i would move very quickly.

I need it in Afghanistan but not in Sheffield and not in London, hell, i'll even walk the streets of Brixton without feeling the need to carry a gun.

The truth is that if the US instituted a gun ban all your tough talk wouldn't mean shit, very very few would do more than complain and those who did do anything would be considered nutjobs by the rest of the population and enemy combatants by the government.

Very few people are actually willing to back up their words no matter how tough they talk.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: punchkin
The countries that ban guns tend to have lower murder rates. That's one thing. I'd also like to point out that if guns were banned here, we too would no longer have a gun culture.

Actually, you are completely wrong about this. If guns were banned here we would have a Civil War. People don't like getting their rights trampled on or taken away. There are a lot of firm believers in the second amendment. Many are armed. Banning guns won't make them magically go away, it will incite revolt.

EDIT: On second read of your post, I think you were probably being sarcastic or joking. Is my sacrasm meter working? Or were you actually being serious?

They don't? Hmmmm, You have lost a lot of rights in the past 8 years, I don't see civil wars going on... I think we should ban hand guns.... All automatic weapons and the only gun anyone should be able to have is a shot gun... They are all you will ever need for home defense. I just don't believe every gang banger drug user junkie thug robber molester should be able to pack heat... The problem is most people that abide by the laws don't carry a concealed weapon. Gotta go get a license pay for this and that... keep it updated. Etc...etc... Where the average criminal 99% of all of them are packing ... no license no training... It's stupid...

But, your not suppose to look at it that way I guess... Ignorance is bliss.

So you just admitted that criminals are carrying in violation of the law. And your solution is to... pass more laws? Damn, why didn't I think of that?

Those old laws were written in pencil. This time they're going to write the laws with magic marker...and underline them for emphasis. The criminals don't know that they can't have guns because the laws were to hard to read and were really unclear.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
If i felt that i needed a gun to be safe in my own home or on the streets around where i live i would move very quickly.

I need it in Afghanistan but not in Sheffield and not in London, hell, i'll even walk the streets of Brixton without feeling the need to carry a gun.

The truth is that if the US instituted a gun ban all your tough talk wouldn't mean shit, very very few would do more than complain and those who did do anything would be considered nutjobs by the rest of the population and enemy combatants by the government.

Very few people are actually willing to back up their words no matter how tough they talk.

More straw man stupidity. Need has nothing to do with this. "Tough talk" has nothing to do with this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Yes, you gun nuts here attempt to explain away correlations this way often. The fact of the matter is that the United States has a higher GUN murder rate than the total murder rate of many countries.

I'm not a gun nut. The fact of the matter is that many countries with outright guns bans have higher murder rates than does the US. Will you argue this? Can you argue this? Or are you going to keep going off on these irrelevant straw men. Tell us, what benefit does it provide society to attempt to enforce an expensive and rights-infringing gun ban when criminals will either (1) just ignore it, or (2) just switch to knives and keep up their criminal acts. Answer: none. So why don't we focus instead on those problems that actually do lead to crime and murder, like poverty and unemployment for example? Oh wait, that would be "unAmerican..."

 

[leingod86]

Gun ownership is a right because the people need to be able to defend themselves against criminals and enemies of the United States, both foreign and domestic. The fact that this is even in question shows how much we take our freedom for granted.

It's not stupidity, ignorance, or a corrupt government that causes the problems our nation faces. The founding fathers built in ways to either sidestep or fix those difficulties. The cause is apathy. The people are apathetic and don't care if they have their liberties stripped away one by one for a little extra security or another government handout. The people of the United States have lost what it means to be a free nation and are content to conform to the control of a bloated federal government, even if it means losing what makes them Americans. So...meh.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Enforcing non-existent "rights" by attacking law enforcement officers, enforcing a valid law, could make you a murderer. :roll: Ya gotta work on them reading comprehension skilz.

You better working on your own reading comprehension skills, dipshit. They're talking about defending themselves against attacking SWAT, not the other way around.

Originally posted by: punchkin
Well, if Palehorse didn't have a right to keep his gun and refused to give it up, there would be no violation of civil rights. In addition, a wack job mounting a "revolution" against the military forces of the U.S. would hardly be an ordinary citizen. Lastly, I have no ideological agenda.

The right to defend oneself is inherent. Like free speech, it is neither given nor can it be taken away.

And if you actually could read, you'd see that there was no mention of "revolution," plus you would have understood my point that society does not look kindly about government violating its citizens' rights. For one, the people are the government. For another, we outnumber them millions to one.

And lastly, you most certainly have an ideological agenda. A highly pro-active one at that. Why else are you always posting it here?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: leingod86
Gun ownership is a right because the people need to be able to defend themselves against criminals and enemies of the United States, both foreign and domestic.

first and foremost, gun ownership is necessary to defend against a citizen's own governement. self defense against criminals/ownership for sport are secondary.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor
So it's anti-American to stand up against the government for your rights? Which cabinet position do you hold in the Bush Administration?

It would be anti-American to attack those upholding the law. If you don't have an individual right of gun ownership, you just don't, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so.

Yea, screw that whole constitution and bill of rights thing.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
If i felt that i needed a gun to be safe in my own home or on the streets around where i live i would move very quickly.

I need it in Afghanistan but not in Sheffield and not in London, hell, i'll even walk the streets of Brixton without feeling the need to carry a gun.

The truth is that if the US instituted a gun ban all your tough talk wouldn't mean shit, very very few would do more than complain and those who did do anything would be considered nutjobs by the rest of the population and enemy combatants by the government.

Very few people are actually willing to back up their words no matter how tough they talk.

More straw man stupidity. Need has nothing to do with this. "Tough talk" has nothing to do with this.

Excuse me? I have no idea what that straw man argument would be since i didn't quote nor respond to any particular post, it was just a general statement.

 

[Vic]

I swear, gun grabbers are even stupider than drug warriors. It never ceases to amaze me.

I have no doubt that SWAT vs. Palehorse won't go well for Palehorse. Unfortunately for SWAT, more than 50 million households in the US own guns. Don't bother yourselves looking it up, there aren't that many government employees in the US, much less police officers, much less SWAT.
Now then, let's go back to what I said earlier in this thread. There will be no civil war. I said, "They'll just refuse to comply with the law in numbers so large that effective enforcement of the law becomes impossible." And not surprisingly, that's the point of this thread, that such a problem already exists in countries that have instituted gun bans, even in those that don't have "gun cultures."

Now... before I gotta read through more piles of BS after ignorant BS, how about you gun grabbers answer that? No revolution. No civil war. No armed standoff. Just a gun in someone's closet like there already are pot plants in millions of closets across the US. Now... what is your almighty SWAT going to do about that? Nothing, that's what.
And the point of your precious little ban was... what? You accomplished... what?
Nothing.
And how much is this nothing going to cost the American people?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin
Yes, you gun nuts here attempt to explain away correlations this way often. The fact of the matter is that the United States has a higher GUN murder rate than the total murder rate of many countries.

I'm not a gun nut. The fact of the matter is that many countries with outright guns bans have higher murder rates than does the US. Will you argue this? Can you argue this? Or are you going to keep going off on these irrelevant straw men. Tell us, what benefit does it provide society to attempt to enforce an expensive and rights-infringing gun ban when criminals will either (1) just ignore it, or (2) just switch to knives and keep up their criminal acts. Answer: none. So why don't we focus instead on those problems that actually do lead to crime and murder, like poverty and unemployment for example? Oh wait, that would be "unAmerican..."

I keep reading that statement and i ask you, what countries have a higher murder rate than the US. I assume you're not dishonest enough to be talking about countries that are not comparable to the US but rather countries like Canada, UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France and countries like those.

I have absolutely no right to dictate what the US should or shouldn't do in terms of guns and that isn't my point either.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
If i felt that i needed a gun to be safe in my own home or on the streets around where i live i would move very quickly.

I need it in Afghanistan but not in Sheffield and not in London, hell, i'll even walk the streets of Brixton without feeling the need to carry a gun.

The truth is that if the US instituted a gun ban all your tough talk wouldn't mean shit, very very few would do more than complain and those who did do anything would be considered nutjobs by the rest of the population and enemy combatants by the government.

Very few people are actually willing to back up their words no matter how tough they talk.

More straw man stupidity. Need has nothing to do with this. "Tough talk" has nothing to do with this.

Excuse me? I have no idea what that straw man argument would be since i didn't quote nor respond to any particular post, it was just a general statement.

Straw man #1: ownership of an item requires a need to use it.
Straw man #2: That the lack of action backing up this "tough talk" would mean that the populace would be in compliance with the ban.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Vic
I swear, gun grabbers are even stupider than drug warriors. It never ceases to amaze me.

I have no doubt that SWAT vs. Palehorse won't go well for Palehorse. Unfortunately for SWAT, more than 50 million households in the US own guns. Don't bother yourselves looking it up, there aren't that many government employees in the US, much less police officers, much less SWAT.
Now then, let's go back to what I said earlier in this thread. There will be no civil war. I said, "They'll just refuse to comply with the law in numbers so large that effective enforcement of the law becomes impossible." And not surprisingly, that's the point of this thread, that such a problem already exists in countries that have instituted gun bans, even in those that don't have "gun cultures."

Now... before I gotta read through more piles of BS after ignorant BS, how about you gun grabbers answer that? No revolution. No civil war. No armed standoff. Just a gun in someone's closet like there already are pot plants in millions of closets across the US. Now... what is your almighty SWAT going to do about that? Nothing, that's what.
And the point of your precious little ban was... what? You accomplished... what?
Nothing.
And how much is this nothing going to cost the American people?

Well said.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin
Yes, you gun nuts here attempt to explain away correlations this way often. The fact of the matter is that the United States has a higher GUN murder rate than the total murder rate of many countries.

I'm not a gun nut. The fact of the matter is that many countries with outright guns bans have higher murder rates than does the US. Will you argue this? Can you argue this? Or are you going to keep going off on these irrelevant straw men. Tell us, what benefit does it provide society to attempt to enforce an expensive and rights-infringing gun ban when criminals will either (1) just ignore it, or (2) just switch to knives and keep up their criminal acts. Answer: none. So why don't we focus instead on those problems that actually do lead to crime and murder, like poverty and unemployment for example? Oh wait, that would be "unAmerican..."

I keep reading that statement and i ask you, what countries have a higher murder rate than the US. I assume you're not dishonest enough to be talking about countries that are not comparable to the US but rather countries like Canada, UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France and countries like those.

I have absolutely no right to dictate what the US should or shouldn't do in terms of guns and that isn't my point either.

I already named them in this thread. Mexico and Russia both have strict gun bans and murder rates many times higher than that of the US. Both countries can be considered comparable to the US. Certainly more comparable than tiny countries like Sweden and Finland that are each scarcely larger than a state.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You know what i really find funny though, the argument of illegal guns... :-D It's hilarious.

You go buy your gun and before you use it to commit a crime you file off the serial number and thus it is an illegal gun and has nothing to do with the sale of legal guns...

Legally bought guns are stolen every day and had their serial number filed off and thus... illegal gun, has nothing to do with the legal guns...

It's generally that kind of stupidity that makes the debate so funny for a foreigner like myself.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin
Yes, you gun nuts here attempt to explain away correlations this way often. The fact of the matter is that the United States has a higher GUN murder rate than the total murder rate of many countries.

I'm not a gun nut. The fact of the matter is that many countries with outright guns bans have higher murder rates than does the US. Will you argue this? Can you argue this? Or are you going to keep going off on these irrelevant straw men. Tell us, what benefit does it provide society to attempt to enforce an expensive and rights-infringing gun ban when criminals will either (1) just ignore it, or (2) just switch to knives and keep up their criminal acts. Answer: none. So why don't we focus instead on those problems that actually do lead to crime and murder, like poverty and unemployment for example? Oh wait, that would be "unAmerican..."

I keep reading that statement and i ask you, what countries have a higher murder rate than the US. I assume you're not dishonest enough to be talking about countries that are not comparable to the US but rather countries like Canada, UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France and countries like those.

I have absolutely no right to dictate what the US should or shouldn't do in terms of guns and that isn't my point either.

I already named them in this thread. Mexico and Russia both have strict gun bans and murder rates many times higher than that of the US. Both countries can be considered comparable to the US. Certainly more comparable than tiny countries like Sweden and Finland that are each scarcely larger than a state.

You actually believe that the US has more in common with Mexico and Russia (it's a fucking dictatorship run by the allies of the state corporate mob for fucks sake) than it does with countries of equal living standards, political system, legal system and immigration rates?

I don't think you honestly believe in that crap Vic.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
If i felt that i needed a gun to be safe in my own home or on the streets around where i live i would move very quickly.

I need it in Afghanistan but not in Sheffield and not in London, hell, i'll even walk the streets of Brixton without feeling the need to carry a gun.

The truth is that if the US instituted a gun ban all your tough talk wouldn't mean shit, very very few would do more than complain and those who did do anything would be considered nutjobs by the rest of the population and enemy combatants by the government.

Very few people are actually willing to back up their words no matter how tough they talk.

You really undestimate Americans. We have militias and a powerful NRA that hold rally's bigger than a Manchester United soccer game on the simple phrase "from my cold dead hands", and even if its not all, a lot of these people really mean it.

Being from the UK, you are probably a lot more subserviant to your government. UK is just about the only country that didnt completely buck its government within the last 300 or so years. Hell yo guys still have a monarchy that goes back how many years? over a thousand? US, France, Russia, Germany, Japan... all overthrew or eliminated something or someone of a govt at some point, and started from scratch, some more than once. But all with at least an attempt at a sense of liberty similar to that of the US's bill of rights. It's not a coincidence that the UK leads the way in orwellian style rule such as facial pattern matching cameras on every corner and complete ban of firearms.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You know what i really find funny though, the argument of illegal guns... :-D It's hilarious.

You go buy your gun and before you use it to commit a crime you file off the serial number and thus it is an illegal gun and has nothing to do with the sale of legal guns...

Legally bought guns are stolen every day and had their serial number filed off and thus... illegal gun, has nothing to do with the legal guns...

It's generally that kind of stupidity that makes the debate so funny for a foreigner like myself.

I don't get your point.

There are already millions and millions of gun already out there, and they're not going anywhere. Guns are highly durable and literally survive AND operate for hundreds of years.
Then there is the issue that gun technology itself is actually quite primitive, with little in the way of genuine innovation for more than 100 years. Any machine shop can manufacture a gun.
Finally, for me as a US citizen, is your notion that as a Brit you live in a gun-less society while your law enforcement, military, etc. still possess and use guns and continue to have them manufactured. Do you really honestly believe that none of those guns ever make it into some kind of illegal black market?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Looking over this list, it looks like UK gun control is working great.

I can name two big US school shootings in the last year alone; NIU and VATech. Has there even been one in the UK in the last decade?

Wait, those are gun free zones. How can there be a shooting in a place where people are banned from having guns?

Gee, I don't know-- the easy availability of guns across almost the whole nation?

What exactly makes you believe that a nation wide ban on them would all of a sudden make them rare? I mean, we are doing SO well at "banning" drugs that are brought across our borders aren't we? Well, I guess I will concede that once they are illegal criminals won't use them for illegal activities because its illegal for them to have the gun.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You actually believe that the US has more in common with Mexico and Russia (it's a fucking dictatorship run by the allies of the state corporate mob for fucks sake) than it does with countries of equal living standards, political system, legal system and immigration rates?

I don't think you honestly believe in that crap Vic.

Well, that's why their murder rates are 4 and 5 times higher than ours.

As usual for a European, your scale of the US is out-of-whack. The US is a nation of nations. It's more like the EU than it is any single nation within the EU. As such, this horrible murder rate statistic you point to is by no means evenly spread out through the states, and in fact most cities and states have rather low murder rates. In fact, the most extreme "gun nut" areas in the US almost always have the lowest murder rates. If you want to point to Finland's murder rate for example, then I could happily refer you to a very comparable state, Oregon (my home BTW), with quite lax gun control laws and and an even lower murder rate than Finland's (2.3 per 100k vs. 2.9). "Wild West" Wyoming's is only 1.74 per 100k. Head on over to "No guns in this town" Washington DC though, and the murder rate is an outrageous 29 per 100k.

So yeah, I do believe that crap. :roll:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
If i felt that i needed a gun to be safe in my own home or on the streets around where i live i would move very quickly.

I need it in Afghanistan but not in Sheffield and not in London, hell, i'll even walk the streets of Brixton without feeling the need to carry a gun.

The truth is that if the US instituted a gun ban all your tough talk wouldn't mean shit, very very few would do more than complain and those who did do anything would be considered nutjobs by the rest of the population and enemy combatants by the government.

Very few people are actually willing to back up their words no matter how tough they talk.

You really undestimate Americans. We have militias and a powerful NRA that hold rally's bigger than a Manchester United soccer game on the simple phrase "from my cold dead hands", and even if its not all, a lot of these people really mean it.

Being from the UK, you are probably a lot more subserviant to your government. UK is just about the only country that didnt completely buck its government within the last 300 or so years. Hell yo guys still have a monarchy that goes back how many years? over a thousand? US, France, Russia, Germany, Japan... all overthrew or eliminated something or someone of a govt at some point, and started from scratch, some more than once. But all with at least an attempt at a sense of liberty similar to that of the US's bill of rights. It's not a coincidence that the UK leads the way in orwellian style rule such as facial pattern matching cameras on every corner and complete ban of firearms.

Well, that is what i meant by "tough talk", very very few people in a civilised country are actually willing to fight their government, fortunantly, in western societies it's been a fairly long time since we had to do that.

Regarding England, may i remind you that if it what not for the "Whigs" and the liberalism that spread the freedom of speech, human rights and a right of ownership throughout Europe (and thus to what would later become the USA) there would be no democracy, right of ownership or freedom of speech.

As an SAS Captain i am a servant of my government, chosen by the people, so is every member of any military to his government in any NATO country, there is nothing strange about that, the government is elected by the people in GB just as in the US.

For some reason some people think the Monarchs actually have any power in England and other western monarchies, they don't, they are for decoration and because US tourists love them.

Facial pattern cameras for identifying known terrorists or checking everyone with the first name James, well, i wonder which is less intrusive to innocents and more effective, of course, there are agencies who really don't give a shit, as long as they are doing SOMETHING, no matter how stupid it is, it's all good.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic
I swear, gun grabbers are even stupider than drug warriors. It never ceases to amaze me.

I have no doubt that SWAT vs. Palehorse won't go well for Palehorse. Unfortunately for SWAT, more than 50 million households in the US own guns. Don't bother yourselves looking it up, there aren't that many government employees in the US, much less police officers, much less SWAT.
Now then, let's go back to what I said earlier in this thread. There will be no civil war. I said, "They'll just refuse to comply with the law in numbers so large that effective enforcement of the law becomes impossible." And not surprisingly, that's the point of this thread, that such a problem already exists in countries that have instituted gun bans, even in those that don't have "gun cultures."

Now... before I gotta read through more piles of BS after ignorant BS, how about you gun grabbers answer that? No revolution. No civil war. No armed standoff. Just a gun in someone's closet like there already are pot plants in millions of closets across the US. Now... what is your almighty SWAT going to do about that? Nothing, that's what.
And the point of your precious little ban was... what? You accomplished... what?
Nothing.
And how much is this nothing going to cost the American people?

All they have to do is go around to everyone's house who has a registered weapon, and get the weapon. Holding onto a confiscatable weapon would be a crime. How about you gun nuts stop making lame arguments about how gun control couldn't possibly work? You make yourself look stupider all the time.