Probably a cultural thing yea. Not so long ago it was common to carry a gun here, but we British have developed a healthy dose of humilty and pacifism since the collapse of the Empire - I think the general consensus is we killed/enslaved enough people already. Maybe it'll take a similar reduction in US power to make similar changes?
Probably a cultural thing yea. Not so long ago it was common to carry a gun here, but we British have developed a healthy dose of humilty and pacifism since the collapse of the Empire - I think the general consensus is we killed/enslaved enough people already. Maybe it'll take a similar reduction in US power to make similar changes?
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
There IS a level of control, it's just not enough for you and since you're not an American your opinion is moot. I think you should get rid of the ridiculous monarchy you have over there. It means your really just subjects and not true citizens like we are. That's why we can own guns. Of course since I'm not a British subject my opinion doesn't really hold any weight, does it.
Doubtful. I would argue that the American gun culture is much more widespread and ingrained into our being than yours was, and, Europeans in general tend to subjugate themselves to the state far more easily.
And we can argue for days what a healthy dose of humility and pacifism looks like.
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
There IS a level of control, it's just not enough for you and since you're not an American your opinion is moot. I think you should get rid of the ridiculous monarchy you have over there. It means your really just subjects and not true citizens like we are. That's why we can own guns. Of course since I'm not a British subject my opinion doesn't really hold any weight, does it.
Hey i'm happy to listen other people's opinion on our government, although of course we are not governed by the monarchy - they have not had a scrap of power for many centuries. And btw we can own guns here - just not such powerful ones. I think the happy medium lies somewhere in between your gun laws and ours.
I don't plan to ever go to America (these forums put me right off that idea years ago) but you're still our closest friends and allies and we should talk about these things, both on the highest political level, and on the lowliest internet chat room.
Except the French of course. They burn half of Paris to the ground in protest every other year it seems like. I agree that is one of our particular modern English problems though. Damn CCTV cameras.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
The levels of violent crimes not involving a firearm are extraordinarily high in England, as are property crimes. Armed citizens aren't stopping the crimes, because that's unlawful. Even unarmed citizens aren't intervening, because that's also unlawful. And the police aren't intervening because... well, they're either scared, lame or lazy. Your system needs reform more than ours.
Your entire argument on this page of the thread focuses on the idea that it's somehow unfair that some people want to carry firearms to defend themselves and some people don't, as if we all need to be equal and even somehow. That's like saying that I shouldn't be able to drive a 400hp car on the roads because other people don't want to and might not be qualified to.
An old lady might point her 9mm in a perceived threat's direction and empty the "clip." Well we can't live our lives predicated on the idea that the worst possible outcome will happen. It's silly, and it's nanny-stateism by definition when you start regulating people based on your unrealistic expectations and fears.
I've owned, carried and collected firearms for 15 years and only been involved in two shootings. Only one outside the home where I intervened in a i love you-bashing that involved a knife. But hey, that guy could have just sorted things out with those 4 bigger guys (one of them armed with a knife) with a quick boxing match, right?
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
There IS a level of control, it's just not enough for you and since you're not an American your opinion is moot. I think you should get rid of the ridiculous monarchy you have over there. It means your really just subjects and not true citizens like we are. That's why we can own guns. Of course since I'm not a British subject my opinion doesn't really hold any weight, does it.
Hey i'm happy to listen other people's opinion on our government, although of course we are not governed by the monarchy - they have not had a scrap of power for many centuries. And btw we can own guns here - just not such powerful ones. I think the happy medium lies somewhere in between your gun laws and ours.
I don't plan to ever go to America (these forums put me right off that idea years ago) but you're still our closest friends and allies and we should talk about these things, both on the highest political level, and on the lowliest internet chat room.
The monarchy may not have much legal power but they still have a lot of sway power and respect of their subjects. It's a British thing, something you've always had. Similarily, we have always had our guns and that right has been guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights.
See what your up against?? I'd never give up my guns anymore then you would support getting rid of the Royal Familie's status as Royals. It's too ingrained into your country.
Maybe you British can't own guns without enslaving and killing people, however us Americans ARE capable of doing that. I'm sorry you are such savages over there that you cannot control yourselves when given weapons but I assure you thats not the case here.
I think you'll find your murder rate is more than double ours regardless of what weapon is used. Perhaps common assault is higher here, but we have something of a culture of street fighting which goes a way to explaining that, and while it's distateful it doesn't usually kill anyone.
On the other hand I think the rate of robbery in this country is far too high and I would be happy to see more people take up their right to keep a weapon in their own home for self defence. You can keep rifles and shotguns here despite the fact that many people here seem to think you're not even allowed a knife.
That and the problem of deciding who gets the carry licence and who doesn't. I wouldn't give it to half the poeple on this forum who claim to have one if it was up to me. The only way to solve that is to let everyone carry - right? That seems a very very bad idea to me.
A better example is you're not allowed to drive over 70mph (or whatever) even if your car is capable of doing it safely. All countries have that law AFAIK.
Well 'magazine' then. And I ain't afraid of you. This is a philosophical arguement, and if anyone has let their emotion influence them, it's you.
So you took it upon yourself to shoot them? Judge jury and executioner? IMO the best case in this situation is call the cops, they respond quickly, they arrest the criminals, and then the court punishes them - not you. Yes this is highly optimistic and maybe even unrealistic, but that just means the cops are crap and need reform, not that we should replace cops with vigilates.
If any member of the monarchy so much as made an offhand suggestion on policy to the government there would be something akin to a riot. It is and has been for centuries totally unacceptable. We had a civil war over it.
Actually I'd get rid of the monarchy and all the other bullshit lords and ladies in a heartbeat. The main reason it hasn't happened is that whenever it is suggested someone pulls out the stats showing they actualy make a net profit for the country. They do get a small amount of money from taxpayers but almost all of it is spent on upkeep of castles which we would want to do anyway - that's our history right there.
This kind of goes along with what I'm talking about... a general, implicit feeling that people are -in the end- incapable and ignorant and must rely of the Omniscient state to provide for them. If you think defending someone against a group of armed thugs is vigilantism, then you just will not understand the psyche of a free and just society.
You misunderstand, of course I would want to defend someone in that situation, but...
Imagine you see a similar situation where several men are beating another. Now imagine the man they are beating is a pedophile who just assaulted one of their kids. You have no idea of this. Still want to to shoot the attackers? You might kill perfectly innocent men and let the pedo escape. This is why courts have to decide who's guilty before anyone gets killed. All those involved in the conflict should be arrested with a little harm to their person as possible. I do support the death penalty.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Let's say in your above scenario that instead of stopping the beating with the threat of supieror force you call the police. By the time they get there, they have beat the man to death. Now they go to jail and the little girl does without her Dad right when she needs him the most. How far do you want to take this ridiculous tact??
You like to take things to the worst possible outcome and you also act as if owning a gun means you're looking for an excuse to shoot someone and that's just not based in reality.
Same old thing... what you're saying is people are just plain too dumb to make appraise a situation or make choices.
If someone shoots out of self defense the courts can determine if it is legitimate. Freedom can sometimes be a messy thing, but it's a beautiful mess. The relatively liberal US gun laws allow a certain level of responsibility that a free people should have.
I do not find it surprising that you on one hand don't think people should kill in self defense yet believe in the death penalty... the amount of faith you place on government compared to the people is vast.
No the guy getting beat is the pedo not the dad - the dad gets off on temporary insanity. My point is you have no idea who the bad guys are when you arrive. Stopping the beating is all well and good but not by killing people. That's just as bad as letting it continue.
I wish people would stop saying things like that - I enjoy shooting and hunting, I like guns as mechanical things, and I have no problem with the simple act of owning them. It's the carrying them in publuic and the using them on human beings I have a problem with.
Yea okay I'll bite that. Most individuals are too dumb to make these desicions. Thats why a jury consists of more than one person. Obviously some people are smart and morally upstanding enough on their own but who makes that decision?
They're already dead. It has to be an extreme situation to justify that - like a home invasion.
What?!? I place my faith in a jury of my peers NOT the damn government. Don't you understand the most basic thing about the court system?
This is just making me angry now. I'm going to play some COD4 then get back to work.
You, apparently.
This is the price of freedom. It's better than living in a babified, sterile security state.
Call it government, call it a jury, call it the collective, it doesn't matter... the larger point is that you are far too happy to take away responsibility and freedom from us "mindless peons" and give to it a committee of overseers.
Errr my entire point is that no individual should and I think you know that. You're just being obtuse.
Okay lets say you're in the above situation with the dad and the pedo and you decide to stop this thing with a gun. The people involved are full of rage and fear respectively and won't bat an eyelid if you just brandish at them. So. Who do you shoot? Remember you have no idea which is which.
All things are good in moderation.
Just to clarify this - you disagree with the jury trial system, the basis of western courts for hundreds of years?
You operate under the delusion that police will arrive quick enough to make a difference. Assume the time from observing the situation to finishing the call to 911 is under 90 seconds. For a serious crime police may arrive in anything between two minutes and fifteen minutes. However, violence is usually over in under two minutes. That's not because the system is broken...it's because it's a physical impossibility to get it done much faster. Police aren't meant to stop crimes, they're intended to discourage some crime, raise revenue for the state, and arrest people AFTER they commit a crime.
You also operate under the delusion that a person with a gun only uses it by drawing and firing. Not necessarily true. In MOST defensive gun uses the weapon is not fired, only used to stop the situation. In the above example you should: interrupt the beating verbally and get in range of the situation (preferably while hitting 911 on the cell phone). Because one man has a deadly weapon in play you draw your gun and go to low ready. You order them to drop the weapon and stand down (preferably while you shout your position to 911 over the cell). Then you wait there until police arrive and take them into custody. The point is, you only fire when forced to by imminent threat...but because you have that as an option you CAN act to intervene.
I very seriously doubt I would shoot at all. The idea is that ever situation is unique and it's better to give people the freedom to intervene -with deadly force- if necessary, rather than forbid everyone from doing so. In my eyes, the benefits of the former outweigh the latter.
Well moderation is a subjective term.
Nope. Courts are basically after the fact, and I have no problem with the system determining if an act was justified. What you want to do is eliminate the act in the first place.
I mentioned this point already - no delusion involved. I am aware the cops are crap but that's a reason to improve them not replace them. I'm aware something other than police enforcement should be done to prevent crime but I still don't trust people like you to do it. Pure physical size, fighting skill, shooting skill, the money to buy a powerful weapon - these things do not make you a better person than everyone else.
I also already covered this point. All I can add is you assume you're drawing the gun on a coward. Anyone with balls is going to say 'either shoot me or put it away' or something similar when threatened with a gun. Then your plan falls apart.
Apparently, there's no law against useless bitching sniveling by cowards.
Don't worry, the messiah is working on that one, I sent him a letter wrapped in a rainbow envelope with some watermelons on it.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Looks as though congress did not approve of the AG's comment and quickly downplayed it as him stating his personal opinion, with Pelosi commenting that they would like to focus on existing laws and have no plans for new legislation...
They know it will bite them in the ass just like it did in '94, no dems are going to touch gun control with a 1000 yard pole.
That said, much to the dismay of the majority of Marxist whiners on this forum, I've stocked up on just about one of everything. Bout time I got that G3 finally.
They know it will bite them in the ass just like it did in '94, no dems are going to touch gun control with a 1000 yard pole.
That said, much to the dismay of the majority of Marxist whiners on this forum, I've stocked up on just about one of everything. Bout time I got that G3 finally.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter